Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sierra Leone

Hugh Robertson: If he will make a statement on Sierra Leone.

Bill Rammell: The UK has made a significant political, military and financial investment to end the conflict in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone has now enjoyed over a year of peace under a democratically elected Government. The UK has a long-term commitment to Sierra Leone, and will continue to support the Government as they make the reforms that will ensure a sustainable peace.

Hugh Robertson: Two key elements in that long-term stability are the prosecution of war criminals and preventing conflict in adjoining countries from destabilising Sierra Leone. In view of that, will the Minister tell the House what practical steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to bring President Taylor to justice? Secondly, what steps are they taking to secure a regional solution to the problems of the area?

Bill Rammell: We have taken the lead in establishing the special court, and committed some £6.6 million to that effect. The court and the prosecutor are entirely independent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the indictment that was recently laid down in respect of Charles Taylor. The prosecutor makes his own decisions, but we are urging that Charles Taylor should give himself up to the authorities, and that others in the region should support that move.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) rightly made the connection with the situation in Liberia, because we know that Sierra Leone's problems have almost always been imported from that country. Even more important than the indictment of Mr. Taylor—although that would be a good thing—is the peace process in Liberia. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what practical steps the British Government are taking to drive through that process, which is a necessary precondition to long-term peace in the region?

Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. We need to push forward the peace process in Liberia, and we are certainly pushing to that effect. The pressure to achieve that will have been enhanced by United Nations Security Council resolution 1478, adopted on 6 May, which renewed the arms embargo and the travel ban aimed at those breaking the arms embargo, and dealt with the issue of rough diamonds. From 7 July, the sanctions will also apply to timber, the revenue from which is used to purchase arms. That pressure, allied with our constant urging of the Liberian authorities to engage in a peace process, represents the right way forward.

Cyprus

Tom Cox: If he will make a statement on the present situation in Cyprus.

Andrew Love: If he will make a statement on the current situation in Cyprus.

Denis MacShane: I welcome the partial easing of restrictions on freedom of movement across the green line, and the European Commission's trade and aid package for the Turkish Cypriots. I hope that they will lead to a comprehensive settlement based on the UN plan, which remains vital.

Tom Cox: I note that reply, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the dramatic changes that have taken place in northern Cyprus in recent weeks. For the first time since the events of 1974, we are hearing the voice of the Turkish Cypriot community, which is clearly saying that it wants to end the isolation and to be part of the Cyprus that goes into the European Union next year. Against that background, what are the Government doing to re-engage the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Republic of Cyprus, President Papadopoulos, with a view to reconvening the talks in the genuine hope that, at long last, we shall see the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish, living and working together? Just what are we doing?

Denis MacShane: Those aspirations are shared by the whole House. Out of the population of 680,000 Greek Cypriots, 270,000 have crossed into the north, and 120,000 of the 180,000 Turkish Cypriots have crossed into the south. Never before have we seen such people power voting with its feet for a united Cyprus. The Government have repeatedly urged the Cypriot Government and the other players in the region—the Turkish and Greek Governments—to take up Kofi Annan's plan, which is on the table and represents the best way forward. We want the authorities on the island and in the relevant countries to help to unite Cyprus and to bring a united Cyprus into the European Union next May.

Andrew Love: I, too, welcome the opening of the green line, but of course this is only the beginning, not the end, in terms of finding a solution. We must keep up the momentum of bringing the parties together. What action is my hon. Friend taking to build confidence between the two communities on the island, and, more importantly, what is he doing to engage the Turkish Government to ensure that they play their full part in bringing together the two communities and restarting the negotiations?

Denis MacShane: I believe that there is confidence between the two communities. Where the breakdown exists is, perhaps, between their political leaders. My hon. Friend is right to focus on Ankara, where the Turkish Government, Parliament and military have an historic responsibility to press Mr. Denktash to reach an agreement within the Annan proposals and then allow a united Cyprus to enter the European Union—and one of its top officials will indeed be a Turkish-speaking representative if the Annan plans are adopted. I think that it is in Turkey's interests for the EU to contain a member state one of whose senior representatives in the European Council of Ministers will be speaking Turkish.

Sydney Chapman: Further to the points made by the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Edmonton (Mr. Love), will the Minister confirm that there are increasing signs that neither the Turkish Cypriots nor the Turkish settlers are prepared to see a divided island remain when Cyprus joins the EU? Will he use his good offices to stress to the Turkish Government that this is the best time to start playing a more positive role in the solving of the problem, especially if Turkey wants to join the EU?

Denis MacShane: I strongly agree. It has been a great pleasure to see Turkish Cypriots waving the blue and yellow EU flag and, along with those in the rest of Europe—with one political exception, perhaps—voting yes to the EU. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that it is for the Turkish Government to engage. We think that they have taken positive steps, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I continue to urge them to move further so that a united Cyprus can enter the EU by May next year.

Richard Spring: Now that Lord Hannay's remit has expired, may I take this opportunity to thank him, on behalf of the Conservatives, for his efforts to resolve the intractable problems of Cyprus? Following the unfortunate recent collapse of the talks, will the Minister join me in welcoming the unilateral proposals of the Republic of Cyprus for moves including freer movement of goods, persons and vehicles and the relaxation of employment restrictions for Turkish Cypriots? Will he applaud the Cypriot Government for continuing to seek a positive resolution of the problem?

Denis MacShane: I think that the proposals, some 16 of them, advanced by the Cypriot Government, are a move in the right direction. The main stumbling block remains the position of Mr. Denktash, which must be dealt with through direct communication with him. We believe that, again, the Turkish Government, Parliament and military have a key role to play.
	Let me record the House's thanks to Lord Hannay. He has been a remarkable servant of Britain in many ways, and has done a great service in trying to bring the two sides together to secure a final deal allowing a united Cyprus to enter the EU.

Edward O'Hara: Given the announcement of the termination of Lord Hannay's service as special representative, what assurance can my hon. Friend give about specific measures that the British Government will take to recognise their special responsibilities as a senior member of the UN and of the Commonwealth and a guarantor of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus? What, specifically, will the British Government do about replacing Lord Hannay?

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the triple role that Britain plays as a permanent member of the Security Council. It is under the aegis of the UN that a solution to the Cyprus problem must be found. Britain is obviously also a member of the EU, and is looking forward greatly to Cyprus becoming a partner.
	I believe that things must now be done at Government level. We need to engage with our partners, especially, as I have said, the Turkish Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the Turkish Foreign Minister here in London shortly, and we will continue to press all parties—particularly the Turkish Government, Parliament and military—to accept their responsibilities. We firmly believe that the signals from Ankara can unblock the path to a solution under the Annan package, which gives a fair deal to both communities on the island.

Zimbabwe

Simon Hughes: What action the Government are taking to bring about the restoration of human rights in Zimbabwe.

Bill Wiggin: What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of (a) South Africa and (b) Nigeria on Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw: The situation in Zimbabwe is very serious. We have been in regular discussion about it with Presidents Obasanjo and Mbeki, and with South African Foreign Minister Zuma.
	Last week President Mugabe's security forces sought to crush opposition protests, and again arrested opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. They have now also arrested the secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, Welshman Ncube. Responsibility for the present state of Zimbabwe lies squarely with its present Government. It is they who are responsible for the abuses of human rights, the collapsing economy and the threat of starvation to millions of people. The plight of the white community is bad, but that of the black community is even worse.
	Together with the rest of the international community, we will continue to provide humanitarian relief, to sustain Mr. Mugabe's international isolation and to highlight his abuses of fundamental human rights. We will continue to work with international partners—the European Union, the United States and the Commonwealth—in the region.
	In that connection, the House will wish to know that, with our active support, the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund decided on Friday 6 June to suspend Zimbabwe's voting and administration rights in the IMF. It is an indication of how critical Zimbabwe's economic and political situation is that that is the first time that such a measure has been taken by the IMF against a country that is not at civil war.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer. The whole country, and, indeed, the world, are aware of the ever worsening human rights position in Zimbabwe. There is not just torture and imprisonments but deaths, verified by more regular reports—the latest by Statewatch today. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider two specific things. First, will he make an additional effort with his Commonwealth colleagues to prevail on the President of South Africa to make it absolutely clear that the view in Africa, as here, is that that activity on behalf of the Government of Zimbabwe cannot and should not continue? If South Africa and the neighbours of Zimbabwe were to say that in terms, there might be a chance of some movement and response by the Government in Harare.
	Secondly, given the welcome announcement last week—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are others who wish to ask questions.

Jack Straw: Thank God, Mr. Speaker.
	We are engaged in very constructive discussions with President Mbeki and Foreign Minister Zuma of South Africa. Our Prime Minister met President Mbeki last week in Evian, and I met both the President and the Foreign Minister two weeks before that. The South Africans are well aware of the gravity of the position. Indeed, in a joint communiqué from Foreign Minister Zuma and me, both countries underlined that
	"the longer the problems in Zimbabwe remain unresolved, the more entrenched poverty will become."

Bill Wiggin: The arrest of Welshman Ncube today, and the fact that Morgan Tsvangirai is on trial for his life, are very serious. Why is it that the IMF has been able to act, the French have acted in the Congo, yet we have done nothing?

Jack Straw: The IMF has, as I have just reported to the House, acted with our full and active support.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is South Africa that has to give a strong voice, and that Thabo Mbeki must recognise that this is not the time to repay Mugabe for the support he may have given to the African National Congress in the past? Now is the time to say to Mugabe that what is going on in his country cannot be accepted. ZANU-PF supporters in Zimbabwe must also be clear and condemn what is being done in their name if we are to see an end to the atrocities and tragedies.

Jack Straw: I entirely understand how my hon. Friend feels about the matter. I know from my discussions in South Africa, and from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's discussions with President Mbeki, that the South Africans are well aware of the very serious damage that is being done not just to Zimbabwe but to the whole region of southern Africa.

Michael Ancram: Since the Foreign Secretary stood beside South African Foreign Minister Zuma on 14 May and meekly endorsed her policy of quiet diplomacy and dialogue in relation to Mugabe, does he know how many people in Zimbabwe have been murdered, tortured, imprisoned, beaten and politically prosecuted? In the past week alone, more than 800 people have been arrested, 400 treated for injuries and 10 hospitalised; three are on the critical list, two have been murdered, and the leader of the opposition and his deputy have been arrested and charged with treason. All that we have had from the Foreign Secretary today is more gestures and more platitudes. When will he finally accept that quiet diplomacy and dialogue are nothing more than a cover for appeasement, that they encourage Mugabe to ratchet up his oppression and that they are a shameful betrayal of the suffering people of Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's frustration and anger, which we all feel. What we have done is to secure sanctions by the Commonwealth, sanctions by the European Union, sanctions by the International Monetary Fund and the increasing international isolation of Zimbabwe, which is exactly what I thought the right hon. Gentleman had demanded in the past. What would be devastating for the people of Zimbabwe, however, would be to imply, by that kind of rant, that there are things that we could do, but we are holding back from them. The only thing that the right hon. Gentleman missed out from his rant was the obvious conclusion, expressed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), that we ought to be taking military action. However, the right hon. Gentleman has himself said to me that he rules out military action. So next time he comes to the Dispatch Box, instead of ranting let him say exactly what he would do in this situation.

Michael Ancram: We need to ask why, when we were so ready to take effective action against the abuse of human rights and against ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans, we are apparently paralysed in the face of similar atrocities in Zimbabwe. For a start, when will the EU's targeted travel ban and freezing of assets be extended to the families of Mugabe's henchmen—not least to their children studying in England—and to the shameful business men who bankroll Mugabe? And when will the Foreign Secretary go to the United Nations Security Council to seek a resolution to internationalise the crisis in Zimbabwe and put observers on the ground? In short, when will he stop walking by on the other side?

Jack Straw: I will go to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution when I believe that we will win a resolution. What would be a disaster—no doubt under the right hon. Gentleman's diplomacy it would already have happened—is for us to go to the Security Council with the certain prospect that such a resolution would be—[Hon. Members: "Flush them out!"] They say, "Flush them out," but I am not in the business of providing gratuitous victories for President Mugabe, as the right hon. Gentleman evidently is.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to action in the Balkans, frankly, that shows up the vacuity of his position. He continually implies that we should take action similar to that taken in the Balkans. The only difference between the action that we took in the Balkans and that which we are taking in Zimbabwe is that in the former, yes, we were able to take military action. He knows very well that a military option is simply not possible in Zimbabwe. More to the point, he wrote to me on 24 October, saying:
	"I have not called for military action in Zimbabwe."
	I rest my case.

Iraq

Tim Boswell: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on ensuring that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are independently verified.

Jack Straw: We recognise the need for credible, independent validation of any discoveries by the coalition. Dr. Blix noted last week that UNMOVIC remains ready to resume work in Iraq as an independent verifier, or to conduct long-term monitoring, should the Security Council so decide. United Nations Security Council resolution 1483 explicitly tasks the Security Council with reviewing the inspectors' mandates. This work will be undertaken in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, as the security situation in Iraq stabilises, the work of the 1,400-strong Iraq survey group of coalition forces will get under way.

Tim Boswell: Given that the position of the coalition, and of Her Majesty's Ministers in particular, depends almost entirely on the credibility of assertions that have been made about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and given that, to put it mildly, that credibility is still very much in question, does the Foreign Secretary accept that it is essential that an element of the verification process should be independent and be seen to be independent, that the process should not be subject to any editorial steering by any other party, and that it should begin as soon as possible?

Jack Straw: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's claim. The simple truth of the matter is that if anybody still needs convincing about the holding of weapons of mass destruction by the Iraq regime before military action was taken, they need only read the very extensive reports of UNMOVIC and its predecessor UNSCOM, which set out in forensic detail the holdings of Iraq and its failure to explain what had happened to them. That point was made by Dr. Blix in his valedictory report to the Security Council just last week.
	On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I accept that if there are further—I emphasise the word further—finds of evidence they need to be independently verified.

Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend impress on our US allies that the early unrestricted return of both UN inspection agencies would help in reasserting the authority of the UN and establishing international credibility, and, if weapons of mass destruction do exist, could speed the urgent task of preventing them from spreading via the black market to terrorists? Subsequently, both agencies could play a vital role across the world in implementing the G8's non-proliferation proposals.

Jack Straw: As a result of military action the security situation in Iraq has changed totally, and the big threat that—as accepted by the international community—it posed while Saddam remained in power, has now been removed. As for the future of UNMOVIC, operative paragraph 11, which was agreed unanimously by the Security Council, required the UK and the USA to keep the Security Council informed of our activities in respect of Iraq's meeting its disarmament obligations, so that it would revisit in due course the mandates of UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency. That remains the position of Her Majesty's Government.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the matter will be revisited, and what action he intends to take to ensure that that is done fairly quickly? That is important, because it will bring international legitimacy to whatever the findings may be.

Jack Straw: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact timetable, but I can say that now that the security situation in Iraq is stabilising—that is the first priority of the coalition forces—the 1,400-strong Iraq survey group is getting going. It should be allowed to do its work. In tandem with that, discussions with the US and other international allies about the future role of UNMOVIC are continuing.

Barry Gardiner: As my right hon. Friend suggests, the security position in Iraq is one of the reasons why the inspectors have been unable to go back into the country. However, is it sensible for the Coalition Provisional Authority to have disbanded the Iraqi army, discharging 500,000 men without any rehabilitation or retraining, and to have allowed them to keep their armaments when they are on the streets without any alternative employment, at the same time as calling for a weapons amnesty? Is such action not likely to destabilise the security situation in Iraq and make it less possible for the inspectors to return?

Jack Straw: I accept the burden of my hon. Friend's question—that a difficult balance has to be achieved between the necessary de-Ba'athification process and the need to maintain security and ensure the continuation of some of Iraq's institutions. I am not saying that all the decisions taken by the Coalition Provisional Authority have been correct, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we are in constant discussion with our US colleagues—at Government-to-Government level and within the CPA in Baghdad—about how to achieve the most appropriate balance in order to get Iraq going again at the same time as reducing internal security threats.

Alan Duncan: The thing about verification is that the weapons have to be found first, but the new Secretary of State for International Development has said that looking for them is no longer a high priority. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it does remain a high priority, because the trust that we placed in the Government—and in particular, in the Prime Minister—now appears to have been abused by deceitful spin, all sorts of embellished arguments and by "sexed-up" propaganda? Does not independent verification also require an independent assessment of what we were told existed? For the sake of the Government's tarnished credibility, will the Foreign Secretary now confirm unequivocally that Alastair Campbell will be required by the Prime Minister to appear before any Committee of the House that may be investigating weapons of mass destruction?

Jack Straw: The appearance of members of the Prime Minister's staff before Select Committees is a matter for the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: "And the House."] Ultimately for the House, of course, but initially for the Prime Minister, who will clarify the matter. I recall that the hon. Gentleman made a fine speech on 18 March, summing up the resolution that was agreed overwhelmingly by the House. On that occasion he was unequivocal in his support for the military action on the basis of the evidence then available—[Interruption.] It does the Opposition no good to try to change the terms on which they backed the Government. The basis on which we took the decisions still applies today, and the hon. Gentleman knows that very well.

Tam Dalyell: Did the Foreign Secretary hear Dr. Blix, in the course of his thoughtful reflections, refer to the difficulties of Iraqi pride, and the way in which weapons would have deteriorated over the years? In the light of the forged Niger documents, and what Paul Wolfowitz has now said about weapons of mass destruction, is not it the case that—with the best will in the world—nobody will believe us unless there is an independent investigation?

Jack Straw: I do not accept that and I refer, yet again, to the clearest possible evidence, published by Dr. Blix himself, of the unanswered disarmament questions—173 pages of them—which was made available to the Security Council on 7 March. My hon. Friend has always been remarkably charitable towards the former Saddam regime, but to try to explain their lying, conniving, abuse of human rights and refusal to co-operate fully with the inspectors on the basis of hurt pride is, frankly, testing the credulity of all of us.

James Paice: Last week the Prime Minister dismissed comments from the Opposition about weapons of mass destruction on the basis that the war in Iraq was justified because the people of Iraq had been relieved of a dreadful dictator. Nobody can deny that they have been relieved of that pressure, but will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the legal basis for the military action was the issue of weapons of mass destruction and UN resolution 1441, and that simply invading a country to relieve it of an oppressor is not legal under international law?

Jack Straw: The legal basis for the military action was clearly set out in the Attorney-General's advice, a summary of which was made available to the House, and a longer letter that explained the background to his decision was also published by me in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The reason why we took military action was agreed by the House in a lengthy resolution, which was essentially a paraphrase of resolution 1441, which set out that Iraq posed a threat
	"to international peace and security"
	because of its
	"proliferation of weapons of mass destruction",
	its unlawful missile systems, and its defiance of the United Nations and a host of Security Council resolutions. It was for those reasons—that Iraq was already in material breach and, under resolution 1441, in further material breach—that the House rightly decided that that country had to "face serious consequences": military action. That was what the House agreed, and it was successfully undertaken.

Harry Barnes: Are any Iraqis coming forward with details of where weapons of mass destruction might be found? Some might be motivated by money, members of the Ba'ath party might want to do deals to protect their future, and others who were opposed to the regime might have ideological reasons, so one would expect that information to be forthcoming from Iraqi sources.

Jack Straw: As the Iraq survey group gets going—it has only just started, for reasons that I have explained, including the need to stabilise the security situation—I am sure that many scientists will come forward for interview. However, the House would, rightly, be the first to complain if people were not able to give free and unfettered evidence in such interviews.

Human Rights

Peter Viggers: What steps are taken to co-ordinate foreign policy with other member states of the European Union on human rights.

Bill Rammell: By working with our EU partners, the UK is better able to promote human rights than we are by working alone. The EU this year has secured UN resolutions on Iraq, North Korea, Turkmenistan, the Congo and Burma, at the Commission on Human Rights. The EU holds regular dialogues with third countries, it promotes human rights globally and it has made respect for human rights a key condition for EU membership.

Peter Viggers: The Attorney-General and others have given robust assurances that UK law will not be undermined by the European constitution, but what use are those assurances when the charter of fundamental rights is to be interpreted by judges of the European Court? The former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), once said, memorably, that the charter had no more legal standing than the Beano. However, the opposite is true, and the result will be cataclysmic. In those circumstances, is it not right to put the European constitution to the British people for a vote? I suspect that they might prefer the British tradition exemplified by Dennis the Menace and the Bash Street Kids to the Euro-imperialism of President Giscard.

Bill Rammell: We welcome the declaration, in the charter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, of the basic rights, freedoms and principles common to all European citizens. However, we have consistently made it clear that we cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence. The hon. Gentleman makes a specific call for a referendum, but that would carry more credibility if the previous Conservative Government had called for a referendum over the far more fundamental changes to the workings of the European Union that flowed from the Single European Act and Maastricht.

Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend has given a number of examples of welcome developments on human rights in the EU, such as those in connection with Iran and China. But does he agree that the human rights profile should be higher? For example, none of the clauses in the relevant agreements with third countries in respect of human rights have been activated. Is there not also a need to have personnel with serious human rights experience—such as those from non-govermental organisations—in the EU's key foreign policy structures?

Bill Rammell: My right hon. Friend is right that we in the EU must constantly seek to do more, although I must point out that the articles to which he refers were activated in the specific case of Zimbabwe. We pushed for that strongly, and very much welcome it. However, there is no doubt that there are further matters that we need to push and press, and we shall do so.

Douglas Hogg: When co-ordinating foreign policy on human rights, will the Minister take account of the human rights of the nine UK subjects held in Guantanamo Bay? Will he seek to achieve a common EU position that holds that those nine UK subjects should either be charged or released, and that their present detention is both illegal and intolerable?

Bill Rammell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Foreign Office has sought reassurances about the health and welfare of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay on a number of occasions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear consistently, the situation is difficult and unusual and it cannot go on for ever. We are pressing on the matter.

EU Constitution

Graham Allen: If he will visit Nottingham, North to discuss the EU constitution; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on the latest draft of the constitutional treaty from the Convention on the Future of Europe.

Denis MacShane: At the Thessaloniki European Council next week Valéry Giscard d'Estaing will present his final report on the Convention on the Future of Europe. The convention will be followed by an intergovernmental conference, where decisions will be taken by unanimity.
	I can inform my hon. Friend that I visited Nottingham on 27 February to discuss Europe. I plan to do so again as part of a series of visits to 100 UK cities and towns to get over the truth about Europe and dispel the propaganda myth.

Graham Allen: That greatest of Britons, Tom Paine, once said:
	"A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government: and government without a constitution is power without a right."
	Does my hon. Friend accept that there can be no short cuts to winning people's consent, either to the euro or to a new constitution that will influence this country? While he is about it, will my hon. Friend tell the House how successful he has been in his pan-European search for a poet who can rewrite some of the Euro-babble that Giscard uses in his first draft into an inspirational text—something a little more inspiring than a sheepmeat directive?

Denis MacShane: We should render unto poets that which poets can do and render unto the responsibility of good government that which we have to do.
	My hon. Friend is both right and wrong. He is right to quote Tom Paine, but he may recall that a number of countries have managed quite well without the need for a written constitution. At the end of a conference of 25 sovereign and independent nation states, we shall have a constitutional treaty that we shall bring back to the House of Commons to debate line by line. Thereafter, I know that my hon. Friend and I will continue to argue the case for being in Europe and helping to run Europe—unlike the Opposition, who want to isolate us from Europe and many of whom want us to withdraw altogether.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) just referred to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as a Euro-imperialist, but is not the truth that, despite being French, the president of the Convention has actually produced a remarkably un-French document? Bearing in mind the Chancellor's announcement yesterday that he hopes to take Britain into the euro—eventually—is it not all the more important that we ensure that future amendments to the constitutional treaty do not include proposals for tax harmonisation?

Denis MacShane: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is right. He is right, too, to note that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has been widely criticised by Euro-federalists, by a number of small countries which think that he has given far too much power to the role of the nation state. The president of the Convention has also been criticised by the Opposition—so between the Euro-federalists who think he is doing a bad job and the fanatical anti-Europeans in the Conservative party who think he is doing a bad job, perhaps he is getting something right.

Patrick Cormack: As we have no written constitution in this country, is there not an unanswerable case for putting a written constitution to the people of this country?

Denis MacShane: We are already fully signed up to the constitutional treaties that make the rules that allow us to make the European Union work. That is what will be brought back to the House. Yesterday, I heard the hon. Gentleman constantly make the point that it is this Parliament that should decide the affairs of our British people, not the Daily Mail with its populist plebiscites. That is why I look forward to bringing back the constitutional treaty for the House to debate and examine line by line.

Michael Ancram: The Prime Minister has said that there will be no referendum on the EU constitution because it is not constitutionally significant. Can the Minister explain how on earth the introduction of a constitution in a constitutional treaty is not constitutionally significant? Why do not the Government have the courage of their convictions and promise a referendum so that people can actually decide—or are they scared that "rogue elements" in the electorate might seek to undermine them?

Denis MacShane: The people actually have decided, consecutively, on Europe—whether in 1975 or thereafter, when generally one party has put forward a position in a general election of isolation or withdrawal from Europe and one party has said, "Let us go more strongly into Europe." In the 1980s, the former was the Labour party and we lost again and again. Today, it is the Conservative party—the Opposition—and if they maintain their hostility to Europe and their calls for isolation from Europe and insist that the Daily Mail decide the future of our European policy, they will remain on the Opposition Benches for years, if not decades, to come.

Wayne David: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there was a wonderful result in Poland at the weekend. Does he agree that the likely enlargement of the EU to 25 member states next year makes it essential that we have a streamlined constitution to meet the needs not only of the present but of the future?

Denis MacShane: I am glad to welcome from the Government Benches the remarkable yes vote delivered by the Polish people on Sunday and I am sorry that we have heard no expression of support from the Opposition for that yes to Europe. To quote the Polish ambassador in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph:
	"As a member of the EU, Poland will strengthen, not lose, her sovereignty." He went on to say that
	"the authorities of my country have not planned for a referendum on the EU constitution and it is not required by our law".
	For once, we might follow the example of Poland and say yes to Europe and drop this populist plebiscite nonsense that is shaped only by those who want a no vote to Europe and to isolate Britain still further from Europe.

Middle East

Mark Hoban: If he will make a statement on the road map for peace between Israel and Palestine.

Jack Straw: We welcome the commencement by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel of the road map and also the personal engagement of President Bush in its implementation. President Bush, Arab leaders and the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, met at Sharm el Sheikh on 3 June. There the Arab leaders made clear their commitment to a negotiated solution and their determination to work for that, including by preventing support from reaching terrorist groups.
	President Bush, the Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers and King Abdullah of Jordan met the next day, 4 June, at Aqaba. There Prime Minister Sharon reiterated his commitment to a contiguous Palestinian state, saying that it was not in Israel's interest to govern the Palestinians, and he undertook to remove settlement outposts. Prime Minister Abbas undertook to work to end the armed intifada and to act against incitement and violence.
	In that connection, I know that the House will wish to condemn the actions of those in groups—such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Brigades—who claimed responsibility for the serious attacks and killings at the Erez crossing on Sunday and who are, by those actions, actively seeking to destroy the peace process and the men of peace in the Palestinian Authority.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his answer. In the light of the actions that he mentions that took place at the weekend, and the rejection by Hamas and others of Abu Mazen's best efforts to achieve peace through the road map, does not the Foreign Secretary recognise the problems faced by the Israeli Government in trying to introduce further concessions, with a backdrop of that violence and the rejection of peaceful methods by Hamas and others?

Jack Straw: I recognise indeed the very significant problems faced by the Government of Israel, and I applaud the stand that Prime Minister Sharon is now taking, against a lot of opposition, not least from within his own party. At the same time, I greatly applaud the statesmanship shown by the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, and the simple fact is that neither side—nor indeed the international community—can any longer allow the agenda for peace to be disrupted and undermined by the men of violence. If we had allowed that in Northern Ireland, we would never have had a peace process. We must not allow that in respect of this much worse conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Stephen McCabe: I am sure that we all wish the road map well, and I condemn those who are obstructing the process. It is clearly still a very dangerous place and, in that context, I wonder whether I might be allowed to raise the case of my constituent Mr. Tahseen Chaudhry, a fourth-year medical student at Birmingham university, who appears to be have been arrested by the Israeli authorities on or about 20 May, then apparently released on 4 June, but re-arrested by the Jordanian authorities. The family are naturally extremely anxious to know what has happened to that young man. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to make contact with the Jordanian authorities to find out whether they are holding my constituent? Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether British officials will be given access to him? If the Jordanian authorities have any plan to charge him with any offence, can we know what that offence is; and, if not, should he not be released?

Jack Straw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's great concern about the fate of the two men involved in the case to which he refers. My understanding is that they were initially arrested by the Israelis, then handed over and taken into custody by the Jordanians. We have been in touch today with the Jordanian authorities, and they have confirmed to our embassy in Amman this morning that both men should be released very soon.

Menzies Campbell: May I join the Foreign Secretary in his condemnation of those in terrorist groups who seek to undermine the process established by the road map? As one who has been critical of Mr. Sharon and his Government in the past, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the symbolism of the dismantling of a number of settler outposts, even though they are relatively minor and, in some cases, uninhabited? Does the Foreign Secretary agree, however, that more than symbolism will be required to meet the full requirements of international law in so far as that relates to settlements? Can he tell us what mechanisms, in his judgment, will be available to the Quartet to ensure that that objective is achieved?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his opening remarks, as the simple truth is that the leaders on both sides, Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon, are showing great courage, including personal courage, in the face of intense and potentially violent opposition from within their own areas. We need to do all that we can to support such statesmen, who are taking such risks to secure a wider peace. Yes, of course there must be more than simply symbolism, but in such a theatre of conflict we should not underestimate the power of symbols, and a start is now being made to remove some of those symbols and shibboleths. Of course, that must be followed by further and tangible action on the ground, which is why the Quartet are not static but are continually in contact to monitor progress and to ensure that that takes place.

Ernie Ross: We know that, as part of the road map, the American Administration have identified an individual who will stay and work on the road map. Who else will be involved in the road map process? Who is the EU representative? Who will be the United Nations representative? Who will be the Russian representative? What will be their role in helping to take forward the road map?

Jack Straw: It is an indication of the high priority that President Bush has given the implementation of this peace plan that he has appointed his own National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to be directly responsible for its implementation. Others will work under Condoleezza Rice in the region. The United Nations representative is Terje Roed-Larsen, and a change is currently taking place in terms of the EU representative, because the existing representative has just retired. Active consideration is being given to a replacement for that individual, but the fact that there is currently a vacancy in no sense indicates a lack of determination by all European Union Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers to play our active part in pushing forward the peace process in the middle east.

George Osborne: The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right when he says that we need to support Prime Minister Abbas in the courageous steps that he has taken. He will have seen the seriously unhelpful comments from President Arafat. What do the Quartet propose to do with President Arafat? How do they propose to get round Arafat, who is once again proving to be an obstacle to peace in the middle east?

Jack Straw: One of the contributions that the United Kingdom made earlier this year was actively to encourage the reform process within the Palestinian Authority through two sets of meetings held in London in January and February, so that the Palestinians reformed themselves with a new constitution that established a Prime Minister who could be an active and reliable interlocutor for the Israelis and for the international community. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, that is perhaps one of the most important contributions that we could have made to the peace process.

James Purnell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is easy to be cynical about peace? Does he recall those voices in the media who said that the road map would never be published and never be implemented, and that Britain and America would never give it their full backing? Does he agree that the terrorists will defeat the peacemakers every time, and that the key is to encourage the Israelis, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab neighbours to work together to dismantle the organisations of terror that are trying to break the road map at the moment?

Jack Straw: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. In particular, there was a high level of cynicism, which I always thought was completely misplaced, about whether President Bush was committed to this exercise. He has shown not only by his words but by his deeds that he regards it as his highest foreign policy priority.

Death Penalty (United States)

Malcolm Bruce: What recent representations he has made to the US Government regarding British citizens facing the death penalty in the United States.

Mike O'Brien: In the last year, Ministers and officials have made representations to the United States Government on behalf of three British nationals charged with death penalty-eligible offences and one facing execution. The three facing charges have now been told that they will not face the death penalty. The British national awaiting execution was executed on 4 February.

Malcolm Bruce: The Minister will acknowledge that Britain is a leading member of the Council of Europe and that its 45 members have abolished the death penalty. Britain has also engaged in dialogue with the United States where there is considerable unease about miscarriages of justice relating to people on death row. There is particular concern about Scots-born Kenny Richey who has spent 16 years on death row although there is disputed evidence in the case against him. Additionally, nine British citizens and three minors in Guantanamo Bay face at least the possibility of trial by a military court and the death penalty, which would be executed without the right of appeal. That would be contrary to any human rights legislation that the Government and this country have ever supported. Does the Minister accept that the situation is a major obstacle to good relations between Europe and the United States?

Mike O'Brien: We clearly have a fundamental disagreement with the United States on the death penalty. Our overriding objective is to avoid the execution of any British nationals. We will express our opposition to the death penalty and its use on a British national at whatever stage and level is judged appropriate after the moment when the imposition of a death penalty on a British national becomes a possibility. We do not differentiate among types of British nationals when making those representations.
	I confirm that we have been closely involved with the case of Mr. Richey, who recently became a British national and now has dual UK-US nationality. In line with our policy, we have been making representations both on his case and on the hon. Gentleman's points about Guantanamo Bay. We always make it clear that if there is any possibility that a death penalty might be considered, we will make representations. I repeat that we do not differentiate among those who are charged.

Geraint Davies: When the British visited my constituent Feroz Abbasi in Guantanamo Bay, he said nothing for an entire hour. What assessment has the Foreign Office made of my constituent's mental health, especially given that he is housed in a cage that is 2 m by 2 m, gets only 15 minutes exercise twice a week compared with the hour norm by internal standards and is deprived of much of his family mail? When will there be a proper assessment and support for his human rights, and when will he be charged or else returned to Britain to his family home in Croydon?

Mike O'Brien: We continue to hold discussions with the United States on resolving the issue of Mr. Abassi and other detainees in Guantanamo Bay. We have made it clear that we expect international standards on the way in which individuals are detained to be applied, especially if they are British nationals. We have also made it clear that the matter has dragged on for a long time and that it is time for the United States to find a way of bringing matters to a conclusion and resolving the anomalous situation faced by the Guantanamo detainees.

Kevin McNamara: Will my hon. Friend tell us the United States' reply to those representations? There is great concern about not only British citizens, but EU citizens and all people who are held in Guantanamo Bay in conditions that seem to defy the Geneva conventions and international norms. It is just not good enough. If we are the great ally of the United States and it listens to us carefully about such things, surely it should have something more positive to say about those representations, especially given that press reports this week suggest that the United States has just constructed an execution chamber at Guantanamo Bay.

Mike O'Brien: Our discussions with the United States have been extensive, especially during recent weeks and months. We hope that it will find a way to take the matter forward but the issue is very difficult. I am speaking not only about the nine British detainees in Guantanamo Bay but about the generality of people who are detained there when I say that productive and useful intelligence information is still being received from detainees. However, we have made it clear that we hope that the United States will be able to resolve the matter as soon as possible.

North Korea

Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on bilateral relations with North Korea.

Bill Rammell: The UK established diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea in December 2000 and opened an embassy in Pyongyang in July 2001. We believe that this provides a useful channel of communication to impress directly on the DPRK regime that it has to desist from developing nuclear weapons and must re-engage with the international community through multilateral dialogue.

Rachel Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that although engaging in any constructive dialogue with North Korea is extremely difficult, it is vital in the interests of regional and global security to keep the channels of communication open? Will he join me in welcoming the recent statements by China and Russia and the G8 summit on North Korea's nuclear ambitions? What role is the UK playing in developing and supporting the international partnership of North Korea's closest neighbours?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is certainly the case that pursuing diplomatic negotiations with the DPRK regime is a challenging task to undertake. Nevertheless, it is crucial that we do so and we remain engaged with all the key international partners. That is certainly the case in respect of China and Russia, and I have had detailed discussions about the issue with my counterparts in those countries.
	I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the initiative of the Chinese Government in calling for and hosting the recent trilateral talks in Beijing. That was a very helpful and positive step forward. Additionally, we remain engaged and in contact with South Korea and Japan. It is crucial that North Korea comes back to the negotiating table and agrees to give up its nuclear weapons programme so that we can move forward.

Point of Order

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is your policy on moving Question Time along? I know that it is difficult, but we only reached Question 12 today, despite the fact that several questions were grouped. Members spend a lot of time preparing questions for the Order Paper and the ballot. How do you think that you can move things along so that we can perhaps get to Question 15 or even further?

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman's question was next on the Order Paper. I do try to move things along. In fact, I have had some success, because in the past we have had fewer Foreign Office questions than we had today—so things are improving.

Consumer Protection (Unsolicited E-Mails)

Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the prevention of unsolicited commercial e-mail; to amend the Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Regulations 2000; and for connected purposes.
	Unsolicited commercial e-mails are a pestilential nuisance that threaten terminally to swamp and suffocate the world e-mail system, which is probably the biggest improvement in communications that the world has experienced since the invention of the telephone. Spam is now a multiplying giant parasite that threatens to destroy its host.
	One hon. Member told me that when he returned from a Select Committee visit abroad his inbox was jammed with 600 e-mails—a common experience for hon. Members. Another hon. Member told me that he is so exasperated with the deluge of junk that he receives that he is threatening to change his URL to tryanothermp.com. The only person I have ever known who claims to have benefited from spam is a gentleman who says that he bought every offer he received to enhance his maleness and now has a male appendage that is 43 m long. That neatly illustrates the preposterous and ridiculous claims made by spammers to enliven our love lives or to give us brides from Nigeria.
	There is a much more sinister side to spam, however. A large number of spam messages are from companies offering medicinal drugs. We know that even under this country's strict rules about 2,000 people a year die from the use of prescribed drugs.
	However, the drugs offered by spammers are not on prescription and are offered without any rules or regulations whatsoever. Most odious of all are the pornographic e-mails. It is estimated that three out of 10 unsolicited e-mails are pornographic. They are sent out on an entirely random basis, so are received by vulnerable people and children, and the images that they present are often distressing and damaging.
	Spammers keep up their deception, lies and dissembling, and are constantly disguising their methods to get through filtering systems. The Member who received 600 e-mails, for example, has an efficient filtering system. The great danger is that the advantages that we gain as parliamentarians from e-mail might be destroyed if we had a filtering system that destroyed the legitimate vigorously expressed messages that we occasionally receive from our constituents. E-mail is a great boon for those of us who serve on international bodies such as the Council of Europe, as we can complete work in a short time—a matter of an hour— by sending reports abroad to be edited, corrected and commented on; previously, that would have taken many weeks.
	Our open, universal system is already in danger of collapse. China has now virtually cut itself off from the world system. There is now another great wall of China—an electronic one—that keeps e-mails out because of the problems that have been experienced there. New Scientist reported last week that one of its journalists sent an e-mail to Texas and had it returned with the message:
	"Your IP address is from a blacklisted country. Disconnecting."
	The blacklisted country was the United Kingdom, so the system is imploding.
	What can we do? Our role is to legislate—that is all that we can do. Twenty American states, eight European countries and the EU have passed much legislation. Heroic work has been done by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who have campaigned against spam and are organising a spam summit on 1 July.
	The purpose of my Bill is to make sure that we act in solidarity with states and countries that are trying to make sending unsolicited e-mail a prosecutable offence. There has been optimism about achieving that goal because of the successful action taken against junk faxes, which have now literally dried up. As for spamming, the rogue country in the free world is the United States of America. One individual there recently equipped his house to send a billion e-mails a day. He knows that if he gets one response for every 1 million e-mails sent he is still in profit. Unfortunately, we are up against the belief in America that free trade should be unfettered and
	"red in tooth and claw".
	In this case, however, that means the freedom of pornographers in their thousands to pollute the internet and the freedom of thousands of criminals to try to rob us. Action must therefore be universal and concerted.
	The Bill seeks to amend consumer protection legislation to prohibit the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail, making it a criminal offence unless the consent of the recipient has been gained. That has already been done in Denmark and Austria. The main message, however, is that we must ensure that people who receive such e-mail are aware of the best way to discourage such e-mails being sent to them in future. There are measures that ordinary e-mail users can take—never make a list of e-mail addresses; never respond to spam at all and, in particular, to spam e-mail that instructs people to reply with the word "remove", as that is used by those who prowl the internet to gather new addresses; and never sign up to sites that promise to remove one's name, because the racket is that those names are used to confirm that there is someone at the other end.
	Finally, I pay tribute to Steve Linford who, in many ways, has been conducting a successful one-man campaign against spam, but is now in despair. Although he has been adept at spotting spammers' new moves and devices, he said last week that the menace could bring the e-mail system juddering to a halt.
	He thinks it may have only six months left. He says:
	"The e-mail system is on the edge of meltdown."
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Paul Flynn, Tony Lloyd, Mr. Win Griffiths, Michael Fabricant, David Taylor, Brian White, Mr. Andrew Dismore and Mr. Huw Edwards.

Consumer Protection (Unsolicited E-Mails)

Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the prevention of unsolicited commercial e-mail; to amend the Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Regulations 2000; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 119].

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (Carry-Over)

John Reid: I beg to move,
	That if at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.
	The carry-over of a public Bill is not unprecedented. The House agreed to carry over the Financial Services and Markets Bill on 25 October 1999. As I understand it, that Bill was a highly detailed and complex measure, which was significantly improved by the extra time provided for scrutiny, but this is the first time a carry-over motion has been moved under the procedure approved by the House last October.
	In its second report of last Session, the Modernisation Committee recommended that Standing Orders be amended to permit carry-over of a Bill by resolution of the House for an experimental period, but that no Bill should be carried over for more than one extra Session. The Committee argued in paragraph 38:
	"If we are serious about providing for better scrutiny then we most adopt a longer time perspective which permits more time and more thorough scrutiny. That can only come from the wider use of carry-over."

Hon. Members: No.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House has just explained why the Modernisation Committee provided for greater scrutiny of a Bill, but can he assure us that, following the statement yesterday and the point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said,
	"Because Britain has experienced difficulty in balancing supply and demand in housing, we propose to build further and extend the reforms already announced in respect of planning"—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 411.],
	we are not getting a new Bill—a rewriting of the Bill—partly because the Government have changed their mind? The Chancellor seemed to imply that yesterday.

John Reid: It is true that the Chancellor referred yesterday to planning and the simplification of the planning process, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the discussions and amendments to the Bill, which cover Crown immunity and various other aspects, and the decision to allow for greater scrutiny were not connected with the decisions announced yesterday by the Chancellor. The decisions were taken in order to allow for greater scrutiny and to incorporate further amendments, and because of the pressure of business in general. Notwithstanding the fact that the entire planning process was referred to yesterday, and is a material factor in diminishing some of the obstacles to our entry to the euro, that is not directly related to the reasons why I am moving the carry-over motion today.
	I finished my quote thus:
	"If we are serious about providing for better scrutiny, we must adopt a longer time perspective that permits more time and more thorough scrutiny. That can come only from the wider use of carry-over."
	Some Opposition Members objected to that. It was not my comment, but a continuation of the direct quote from paragraph 38 of the Modernisation Committee's second report of the previous Session.

Paul Beresford: It is clear from the Order Paper that if the motion is agreed the Bill will return to Standing Committee. The difficulty faced by the previous Committee was that as a result of the lack of time allowed by the guillotine only a fraction—perhaps about 25 per cent.—of the Bill was covered. In the light of the proposed changes, will the time allowed in Standing Committee be sufficient to allow proper consideration of the Bill?

John Reid: I hope that it will give a greater opportunity for scrutiny. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was no leeway for amendment or discussion. The information that I have—of course, I was not a member of the Standing Committee—suggests that some 500 amendments were tabled and 210 were taken in respect of a Bill of about 70 clauses. That does not suggest that there was a complete absence of scrutiny or discussion of the amendments. Nevertheless, I hope that the point that he makes is correct and that there will be greater leeway for scrutiny when the Bill goes back to the Standing Committee.

Paul Beresford: Many of the amendments were dealt with under the guillotine. On the basis of a quick finger count, I hope that those amendments were not included in the total.

John Reid: That is all the more reason for the hon. Gentleman and I to be united in welcoming the fact that there will now be some more time for greater scrutiny of the Bill if it returns to the Standing Committee. Indeed, I hope that the Government's willingness to allow more time for scrutiny will be welcomed not only by him, but in all parts of the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Bill was 90 clauses and seven schedules long. Will the Leader of the House tell us how many clauses and schedules were debated in Committee? Can he assure the House that when the Bill is recommitted to a Standing Committee, the Committee will not be subject to a guillotine?

John Reid: On the first question, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off the top of my head how many provisions were debated, although I can write to him.

Eric Forth: It is very important.

John Reid: I have no doubt that it is important, and I try to assimilate whatever information I can about Bills with which I have not been personally acquainted, but I cannot provide a direct answer to that question. As I said, I understand from the background information that I read before this debate that about 500 amendments were tabled to a 90-clause Bill. More than 200 amendments were selected and discussed, often in groups.
	Of course, there is continual time pressure and continual pressure on the Government in terms not only of the legislation, but of the degree of our accountability. Throughout the past six months, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and his colleagues have been at the forefront in asking us to be accountable to this House on the question of Iraq in particular, and we have done that. It is not possible to guarantee in advance that we will not use the guillotine on any of the amendments, but, whatever complaints hon. Members have had in the past, it is plainly the case that there will now be more scrutiny than there would have been before I came to the Dispatch Box to announce the carry-over.

Matthew Green: I might be able to elucidate the matter a little. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who is sitting next to the Leader of the House, stated in a written answer:
	"Of the 90 clauses in the Bill, 22 were fully debated, four were partly debated and 64 were not debated."—[Official Report, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 348W.]
	A massive 64 clauses were not debated.

John Reid: In view of those circumstances, there is an even greater reason why there should be at least a degree of unity, and agreement that the scrutiny offered by the carry-over—an addition to any that has occurred until this stage—should be welcomed by all of us. I find it extraordinary that an alleged lack of scrutiny in the past should become the basis of an objection to extra scrutiny in future. I do not follow the logic of that position.

Sydney Chapman: Given that if the Bill is recommitted to Committee it will contain extra provisions, especially on getting rid of Crown immunity and promoting the Government's sustainable communities agenda, may we have an assurance that not only the new clauses but the 64 clauses in the present Bill that were not considered previously—not through filibustering—will be considered in Committee?

John Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, as a matter of formality we are recommitting the whole Bill, not parts of it. If he has misgivings or desires about how we conduct the extra time that will be available, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be only too willing to discuss that allocation of scrutiny time with Members on both Opposition Front Benches. I see that the hon. Member for Cotswold is nodding. I do not concede that there was inadequate scrutiny in the past, but, if there was, surely we should all welcome the fact that there will be additional scrutiny in future. [Interruption.] Perhaps not those of a more churlish spirit.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given that the previous guillotine enabled only less than a third of this highly technical Bill to be debated, and that we still do not know precisely what new items the Government are going to put into it, will the Leader of the House tell us what the new items will be so that we can judge whether the provisional eight sittings that the Under-Secretary has proposed to me will be enough? We will have only four sittings on the five major new items that Government are to add to the Bill and four sittings to revisit at least half a dozen issues that we raised in relation to the previous Bill. The Government are already building up a problem for themselves as regards the new recommittal Committee.

John Reid: We are always willing to take the advice of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and we will try to defuse any problems that he thinks are building up.

Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Reid: Yes, as soon as I have finished responding to the hon. Member for Cotswold. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will outline some of the issues in more detail when he speaks.

Andrew Bennett: I am not enthusiastic about guillotines, but the blame for the lack of debating time for the Bill should lie firmly with Opposition Members. They knew what was in the Bill, and if they had been succinct and to the point they would have been able to cover the issues. They should take an example from Members in the other place, who are dealing with legislation very quickly and efficiently.

John Reid: I am sure that my hon. Friend's robust and forensic criticism of the attitude and practices of those on the Opposition Front Bench is accurate, but I am trying to be more emollient, as is my wont on such occasions, by trying, whatever differences we have had in the past, to direct us towards a position of potential agreement. It is good that we now have more time for scrutiny. If hon. Members are concerned about using that extra time, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will explain in some detail the measures that will to be added to the Bill, and he is willing to discuss with Members on both Front Benches how the time is allocated. We shall attempt to make up for whatever deficiencies there have been in the past, irrespective of which side of the House they arose from.
	I had hoped—admittedly, it has proved to be a forlorn hope for the time being—that the Government's willingness to allow a longer time for scrutiny of the Bill would be welcomed on both sides of the House. I hope that later the House will agree to recommit the Bill to Standing Committee, but it will be possible to give it more time in Committee only if hon. Members agree to our proposal to carry it over to the next Session.
	There are various reasons for that proposal; I have not pretended that it is all to do with allocating extra time for scrutiny, although that is part of it. I have been open with the House, in the past, as well as today, about the pressures that we are under this Session, not least in view of the fact that we have made available—quite rightly; I make no complaint about it—a significant amount of time to consider the situation, then the conflict, in Iraq. Although we have enough time to complete the passage of the Bill this Session, we believe that it would be beneficial to delay its departure to the other place. That will give us the opportunity to introduce to the House, rather than in the Lords, new provisions to end the Crown's immunity from planning control, subject to certain safeguards, thus implementing a long-standing cross-party commitment. I hope that the House will welcome that and accept that the motion is made in good faith.
	We will discuss later how the additional time in Committee can best be used. That will be a matter not for diktat, but for negotiation through the usual channels.

Eric Forth: Huh!

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman contributes what I presume to be an Anglo-Saxon, rather than a Latinate, "Huh!" to demonstrate his scepticism about my remarks. I know, however, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is always eager to try to reach a consensus on such matters, and I hope that the Opposition will engage constructively in the process of how we allocate the extra time.
	We do not anticipate that the Bill will have completed its passage through the other House by 4 December, a year after its first introduction in the House. We have therefore also tabled an extension motion today to allow proceedings on the Bill to continue for up to a further six months.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Bill left Committee and was reported to the House on 28 January this year. What has happened to it in the intervening period? Surely it could have almost been on the statute book by now.

John Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the period since the end of January has been rather busy in the House.

Eric Forth: No, it has not.

John Reid: Well, it has included a war, among other things. It has been a busy time. I understand that the hon. Member for Cotswold may have found it inconvenient to wait for this important Bill—so have we. However, we are now in a position not only to make cross-party amendments but to give additional time to scrutinise it. I hope that that is some consolation. In practice, we hope that the Bill may achieve Royal Assent by the end of March.
	In short, I ask the House to agree to the carry-over of the Bill and hope that it will accede to that request.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on this important and unprecedented motion.
	Today, we are witnessing the Government performing a sheepish and embarrassed U-turn over one of their flagship Bills of this parliamentary Session. It comes as no surprise that they hope to smother under the guise of complex parliamentary procedure the admission that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was, from the start, a deeply flawed and poorly drafted measure. It strikes me as remarkable that for the past few months the Under-Secretary has been walking around with his fingers crossed, hoping that nobody notices that the Bill has been out of Committee since 28 January this year. For no fewer than 133 days, the Bill seemed to be reported missing somewhere in Whitehall. Rather as in the case of Lord Lucan, reports occasionally crept out of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about its possible whereabouts, but there were no definitive sightings. We all asked ourselves whether the Government were so embarrassed about the Bill and the reaction to it from all manner of specialist and professional bodies that they planned quietly to shelve it, or whether it would be whipped through Parliament before the summer recess despite the fact that it was deeply flawed.
	As long ago as December 2001, the Government produced three huge tomes of consultation papers, to which they received no fewer than 16,230 replies. As a result, they decided to submit the Bill to the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure and referred it to the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Committee produced its report in July 2002. It shows how flawed the Bill was from the start. Paragraph 5 of its conclusions states that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions provided the Committee with an analysis of the responses to the consultation on the Green Papers, to which I referred. It showed that 88 per cent. of the respondents did not support the replacement of local plans, unitary development plans or the local development framework, and that only 10 per cent. of the 16,000-odd respondents supported the abolition of county structure plans.
	Many organisations that responded, such as the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which supported reform in principle, opposed many of the practical grounds. The former was critical of proposals for business planning zones and the latter criticised the plan to introduce tariffs. Paragraph 6 of the Select Committee report stated that the proposals amounted to a fundamental and radical reform of the planning system, but that it had been argued that the Government's objectives could be better met by reforming the existing system. Conservative Members say amen to that. We argued all along that it would be far better to reform the existing system than to rip up four or five decades of case law and planning law and start again, thus creating a paradise for lawyers.

Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman also take the trouble to make the point that the Government listened to the Select Committee and made many consequent changes? Much of the organic change for which we have argued has been going on during the consideration of the Bill. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Select Committee report, but he should update his comments by saying that the Government listened.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Government may have taken note of a small amount of the Select Committee's report, but they produced a deeply flawed Bill. It was rushed through in 12 half-day Committee sittings, which ended on 28 January. The guillotine was far too strict and we voted against it. The specialist magazine, Planning Weekly, was moved to comment:
	"The Government is not fast-tracking the legislation so much as actively railroading it through."
	That railroading made proper parliamentary scrutiny almost impossible. We should bear that in mind when we consider the extent to which the Bill's scrutiny was unsatisfactorily stunted.
	Hon. Members have already pointed out that the measure has 90 clauses and six schedules. By the end of consideration in Committee, 63 clauses and four schedules had not been debated. What a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny. In the Committee's sixth sitting, clauses 18 to 36 could not be debated, which meant that contentious issues, such as the preparation of local development documents and the plan for joint committees of county councils and local planning authorities—two of the measure's central planks—went undebated.
	On 21 January, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) tabled an amendment to correct two glaring spelling mistakes. The Bill mentioned "complusory" purchase and used the peculiar new word "satisified". It would have been reasonable of the Under-Secretary to accept the amendment without debate. However, he asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. It was put to the vote on my insistence and defeated. The Minister's only excuse for refusing to accept elementary amendments on spelling mistakes was:
	"I do not have confidence that there are only two errors . . . I undertake that my counsel will go through the Bill to find all the typos".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 January 2003; c. 299.]
	At that stage, the Government were so determined not to consider any amendments that we were asked to let the Bill be reported to the House with spelling mistakes. If that is allowed, how can we do our job properly?
	On 6 December 2002, when the Bill was published, the Government stated that they intended to have a new planning system up and running by the next year. Only two months ago, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), the Leader of the House described the Bill as "important, indeed urgent". A month ago, the Under-Secretary affirmed his desire to get the Bill
	"approved and on the statute book as soon as we possibly can."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 298.]
	What have the Government been doing since January?
	According to the Standing Order, only one Bill can be committed under the unprecedented carry-over procedure. It is almost as if the Bill is a test case. What a measure to choose—it has had such a bad start and such long consideration. As the Leader of the House said, the procedure is not unprecedented in that the Greater London Authority Act 1999 began with 277 clauses and reached Royal Assent with 425 clauses. However, the Bill has been moved to a late stage in the Session, and we do not know what the Government will include in it now that they could not incorporate initially.
	The Under-Secretary told me the other day that he intended to tackle five items. First, he would correct the spelling mistakes that he previously refused to correct. Secondly, he would include the measly concessions that he made in Committee. Thirdly, he would consider further some of the issues that we raised in Committee, such as the statement of development principles, planning permission, urban development corporations and local development orders. However, we are told that we are likely to get only four sittings in which to examine those matters.
	Fourthly, the Under-Secretary said that he would include a provision to take account of the Law Commission's recommendations on the mechanics of compulsory purchase. To my mind, that is the only excuse of the four for wanting to extend scrutiny of the Bill. Fifthly, he said that he would introduce a new concept of eliminating Crown immunity in relation to planning for Departments. That would have an enormous effect in terms of bureaucracy, delay and expense. In a letter dated 5 June 2003, he stated that he would include a sixth category to implement the sustainable communities agenda.
	Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us what exactly he will include in the Bill. There is no chance of properly scrutinising the six categories, let alone revisiting some of the issues that were not debated in Committee, in the eight sittings that he proposes.

Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that—perhaps this is even more important than the points he has just made—we now have an opportunity to simplify the Bill? We have an opportunity to deal with what was being imposed on this country compared with Wales, but it is being missed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend played a sterling part in Committee. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet contributed greatly, unlike some Labour colleagues, who never spoke. I shall revert to that point later. My hon. Friend has made a good point. The provisions for Wales are a great deal simpler than those for England. Although we debated the incorporation of the provisions for Wales into the English system at length, the Government steadfastly refused to consider that. I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that the extra time that the unwelcome and unprecedented motion grants will give us a chance to revisit the matter.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman suggested that he was not happy with ending Crown immunity. How does he square that with his opposition in Committee to the many powers that the Bill awarded the Secretary of State? Why does he want the Secretary of State to retain powers on Crown immunity? I am confused by a position that appears inconsistent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman adopts the sneaky technique of misrepresenting me. I did not say that we opposed the abolition of Crown immunity. I want to see the Government's proposals and I shall subsequently decide whether to recommend them to my colleagues. Until we read them, it is impossible to make a judgment. That is why we need adequate time in Committee to debate them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the measure is a centralising Bill par excellence. It gives the Secretary of State and the regions enormous powers. Both matters were subject to many amendments in Committee to try to make a bad Bill better.
	We are debating something that is unprecedented. It is covered by the new Standing Order introduced in the House on 29 October 2002, which makes provision for a Bill to be carried over. As the Leader of the House has said, the Modernisation Committee's idea, when proposing the new Standing Order, was to ensure that Bills had proper scrutiny. I hope that introducing this motion, which the Government will presumably whip through on their side, will enable the Bill to have such proper scrutiny, because otherwise, those bodies out there will be equally dissatisfied. We have had a lot of representations, and I shall give the House one or two quotes from them. Simon Ricketts, a partner at S.J. Berwin, says:
	"The planning bill will make the system more complex and will not achieve the government's aims for a faster, fairer planning system."
	Karen Cooksley, a partner at Masons, states:
	"The planning bill will keep lawyers busy for years."
	We would have found it infinitely preferable to modify the existing system, but the Government were not satisfied with that. They are determined to tear up the existing system, to create huge powers for the Secretary of State, who will be able to control virtually the entire planning system, and to dictate to the regions what they must put in their regional spatial strategy. The regions will, in turn, dictate to the local authorities what is to be in their plans.
	I have one final question for the Minister. A number of councils are currently considering their local plans. They have been ordered to adopt the new system in 2004, whether the legislation is in place or not. Under this new procedure, we are getting a year's extra scrutiny from when the Bill was first committed to the House on 4 December. If the next motion—which you will not permit me to talk about now, Mr. Speaker—is passed, we shall have a year and a half. That will take us to June 2004, at the latest, to get the Bill on to the statute book—if, indeed, the Government do not have to use the Parliament Act to get it through their lordships' House. The House of Lords will now undoubtedly give it huge scrutiny. How are local planning authorities to approach this matter if they do not know precisely what form the Bill will take, but have been told that they must carry out the consultation and start preparing their local plans? The local authorities need an answer to that question from the planning Minister.
	This motion is unwelcome. We wish that it had not been introduced, and we believe that the Government's discipline in getting their legislative programme through the House is a shambles. If the Bill is carried over, the parliamentary procedure in the next Session will undoubtedly be made even more difficult, because it will be cluttered up with Bills from this Session. We will oppose this motion; it is a bad motion from a Government who are incapable of getting their legislative procedure through. This is a bad Bill, to boot, and we hope that we shall now have an opportunity to improve it in some small measure.

Andrew Bennett: I welcome the procedure that the Government are going to adopt for carrying over Bills; it seems very sensible. I should like to make two points. The first is about the nature of Bills in the House and the way in which the Leader of the House will deal with Bills in the next few months. The second is specifically about this Bill.
	As I understand it, there has been a tendency for the Government to want to keep Bills short. It has even been said that if a Bill gets too long, the Legislative Programme Committee of the Cabinet will not allow it into the timetable at all. I hope that the Government will give some thought to that matter. When I used to teach—admittedly, it was some time ago—the Education Act 1944 was almost the teachers' bible. In that one piece of legislation, we could see most of the provisions that we needed for our work. The tendency of the Government in recent years, however, has been to have lots and lots of legislation, and I simply make a plea to the Leader of the House that it might be better to get on to the statute book a big, comprehensive Bill that would last, rather than giving Departments pint-sized pieces of legislation on a regular basis.
	I make this plea bearing in mind the Housing Bill that the Select Committee is about to look at. The amazing thing is that we have received a huge amount of evidence for the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill—that is very helpful—but almost 50 per cent. of it complains about things that are not in the Bill. When we spoke to Lord Rooker about that, he made it quite clear that if the Bill were to expand, it could well lose its legislative slot in the Queen's Speech. I would therefore like to ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider letting Departments have full and comprehensive Bills when they need them, rather than doling out a little bit each year. That would be much better.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting and constructive point, but let us suppose that the Bill, in whatever form it takes, eventually gets on to the statute book. Would not that be a good time for the Government to introduce a consolidation Bill that brought together in one piece of legislation all the matters relating to town and country planning, including the principal Act?

Andrew Bennett: There might well be arguments for a consolidation Bill, but I do not think that the House deals with them particularly well. I would repeat my plea for having a full Bill to start with. When I come to discuss the Bill itself, I shall make the point that adding on the provisions relating to compulsory purchase orders and other matters is a sensible move by the Government.
	I want to make the small point that, in my view, the Opposition are whingeing far too much. It seems a little odd that the most important thing that they wanted to consider in Committee was the spelling mistakes. I should have thought that there were more important principles in the Bill. Being a bit dyslexic myself, I do not think that we should get too hung up on the spelling, but I shall leave that point aside. The Opposition should also consider how Parliament has been modernised. If we are to have pre-legislative scrutiny, and if the Select Committee is to do much of that work, the Opposition will have to consider using their time in Committee rather more efficiently.

Eric Forth: We always appreciate helpful advice from the hon. Gentleman, based on his vast experience, but if he is saying that the Opposition must fit in with the time arbitrarily set by the Government, I am not sure that I agree with that as a parliamentary principle. Is he aware that, certainly in another place, the recent experience has been that pre-legislative scrutiny increases interest in a Bill, and increases the available level of knowledge and expertise about a Bill? It does not, therefore, reduce the amount of time or the necessity for scrutiny; rather, it tends to increase it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that?

Andrew Bennett: I understand those arguments, but I still believe that, as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government have to concentrate their mind on the issues that people outside are pressing. It might well be that the Opposition need to do that as well.
	I do not like the idea of knives coming down in Committee. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that a Bill has to come out of Committee at a certain time, and that is what the House has traditionally done. It is then up to the Opposition to allocate the time within those constraints. If the Opposition want a sitting to go late into the night—although I understand that Ministers are not very sympathetic to this—I have no difficulty with that, so long as they are prepared to meet the deadline at the end of the proceedings. It is important, however, that they adapt their tactics to current procedures.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has made a point about knives. He will be aware that knives have been involved on at least four occasions in relation to this Bill, and on no occasion was the Government Whip prepared to go beyond 7 o'clock, despite the fact that we were prepared to do so. We do not agree with guillotines at all, but if the Government were to give the Opposition the freedom that the hon. Gentleman describes, within a constrained number of sittings, by extending the sitting time and removing the knives, there would be some purport in his criticism.

Andrew Bennett: I accept that; it seems to me that there has been a lack of negotiation. Personally, I would not start with the guillotines; I would simply start with the Government setting a deadline for the proceedings and hoping that the desired result could be achieved by negotiation. I have to say, however, that, having been in the House for quite a long time, and having filibustered in Committee on many occasions, I believe that the way in which Bills were scrutinised in the past was often not particularly helpful—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going wide of the matter before us.

Andrew Bennett: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I shall turn to the Bill itself.
	I welcome the extra bits that the Government will put into the Bill, but I want to press the Minister on the question of delay. When the Select Committee was rather more enthusiastic for organic change, rather than a big bang of legislation, there was a worry that there would be a hiatus for local authorities in the interim while moving from the old system to the new. I think that such a hiatus is beginning to develop.
	I hope that the Minister will tell us that this process will not delay the implementation of the Bill. The dates envisaged were some time after the Government expected Royal Assent to be given, and I hope that they will be kept to.
	Will we have the extra planners we were promised? The legislative change will not work without more planners, and more effective planners. We were pleased when the Government made concessions on section 106 money, but many people outside are confused and concerned, and I hope the Minister can tell us exactly what is happening. I also hope that we can have a bit more information about the provisions relating to compulsory purchase orders, and an assurance that what the Chancellor talked about yesterday will not be slipped into the Bill: that would be very unfortunate.
	I plead with the Minister to ensure that any new development body for the Thames gateway will not slow the process down. The Select Committee noted that in Dartford, for instance, people who had been working very slowly for nearly 10 years had now got their act together.
	When trying to create sustainable communities, the Government should look again at the building regulations. This morning, with the Select Committee, I visited BedZED, a Peabody Trust development. That showed me how much progress could be made in the building of sustainable housing. I hope that building control regulations will keep up to date with the best of what is proposed.
	I am glad that we are going to spend a bit more time on the Bill. Perhaps the Leader of the House will consider applying the same principle to the draft housing Bill. Finally, let me plead with the Opposition not to go on whingeing about guillotines, but to find ways in which they can work effectively within the new restrictions.

Paul Tyler: I am glad of the opportunity to speak. As the Leader of the House said, although there are precedents for carry-over, we are using a new procedure for the first time. My colleagues and I are far from happy about the way in which that procedure is being imposed on us.
	I have experienced the benefit—I hope it is a benefit—of working with the Modernisation Committee on some of these issues since its inception. Neither the Leader of the House nor his Conservative shadow, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), have experienced that benefit, let alone others who are speaking today. I therefore want to refer to points made by the Leader of the House earlier, and to what lies behind the process.
	The Modernisation Committee has always seen this as a deliberate, careful trade-off. The Opposition parties would have a bigger role in deciding the business of the House, while the Government would have more certainty about the way in which its business might be pursued. In particular, we might together try to improve the product that emerges from the legislative sausage machine. I am sorry to produce another analogy immediately, but that would enable us to avoid the "London bus" syndrome of having to consider all the big Bills arriving seriatim during the parliamentary year without devoting proper scrutiny to some important parts of them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) hopes to deal with points relating specifically to the Bill if he is able to speak on the next motion. I want to return to what was said by the Leader of the House in his introduction. He referred to a motion put to the House on 29 October last year, and to one of the Select Committee's recommendations which was the subject of the debate that followed. What he did not mention was recommendation (i), which stated:
	"We recommend that there should be collective consultations with other parties in the House on the broad shape of the legislative year, those Bills intended to be published in draft, those Bills intended to be carried over and which Bills are expected to be introduced in the Commons, including discussion on the likely dates of recesses and related matters such as Friday sittings and Opposition days".
	That was part of the trade-off.
	The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) was right to point out that implicit in the Modernisation Committee's proposals was the fact that the Government would know the date when Bills would leave Committee, but that within a Committee it should be largely left to the Opposition parties to decide where the knives should fall and how much time should be spent on individual sections. That is all part of the proposal put to the House on 29 October.
	Lest there be any doubt about that recommendation, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), made crystal clear what the procedure was intended to be. He said:
	"we have committed ourselves to consultation with other parties in the House—both the official Opposition and the other parties—on the broad shape of the legislative year, including consultation on which Bills might be introduced in draft, what the broad order of Bills coming before the House might be, whether a Bill begins in the Lords or in the Commons, and which Bills might prove to be appropriate for carry-over. That is wide-ranging consultation—much wider than any collective consultation that has previously been attempted in this House—and I hope that it will assist in developing consensus on the shape of the parliamentary year."—[Official Report, 29 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 696.]
	There has been one such meeting—a meeting between the then Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, a representative of the minority parties and me. There have, however, been no further collective consultations on these issues. The context of the motion we are discussing has therefore been blown to smithereens. There has been no discussion, and no agreement, on the broad context of carry-over and the legislative year. That means that the agreement made not just in the Modernisation Committee but in the House on 29 October is not being followed this afternoon, and my colleagues and I are very concerned.
	We do not think it acceptable to deal with these matters piecemeal. There must of course be a specific motion for a specific Bill—that is what the House agreed to—but we face the possibility that over the next few weeks we will have to deal with other stand-alone motions on other carry-over issues without the appropriate consultation that was agreed to, and to which the Government were previously committed.

John Reid: I do not dismiss some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Normally, at the time of Second Reading or thereabouts, we would want to give prolonged advance indication of the Bills that we wanted to carry over. That has not happened in this case. I hope that we shall not need to resort regularly to the method we are having to employ today.

Paul Tyler: I hear what the Leader of the House says and I know that he speaks with great sincerity, but I wonder whether we shall not be faced with yet more carry-over proposals between now and the end of the Session—in which case his words may come to haunt him.
	Two other important safeguards were built into the trade-off that was recommended to, and accepted by, the House. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has already mentioned one: that programming in Committee should be left to the initiative of members of that Committee, in particular Opposition members, so that they could identify the most important issues, and decide on the allocation of time and where the knives should fall, in a programming sub-committee.
	The other safeguard is equally important. In the proposals put to the House on 29 October, there was a deliberate link with pre-legislative scrutiny. It was said that that was one way of ensuring that the time of both Houses was put to good use. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and his Committee did some good work on pre-legislative scrutiny, but let me put this to the Leader of the House. We now know that a lot of new material will come before the House and its Standing Committee. Will the Select Committee be given an opportunity to carry out more pre-legislative scrutiny?
	Some of these issues are extremely significant. If the link is between pre-legislative scrutiny and carry-over, the full exercise must be undertaken rather than the Committee's being left to try and work its way through new material in a way that has been described as haphazard—which is putting it pretty mildly. We should note in passing that the other place has built into its agreement to any carry-over the explicit promise that pre-legislative scrutiny will have occurred.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that paragraph (3) of the Standing Order of 29 October 2002 says:
	"A carry-over motion shall not be made in respect of more than one bill",
	so only one Bill can be carried over under the procedure. Does he agree that this Bill, having had huge pre-legislative scrutiny, is an inappropriate candidate for that? A Bill that had not had pre-legislative scrutiny should have been carried over. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will look carefully at that aspect when the order has to be renewed after this Session.

Paul Tyler: I stand to be corrected but the order simply says that there has to be a motion for each carry-over. That does not mean that there will not be any more motions between now and the end of the Session.

Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, strictly speaking, there was not pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill? My Select Committee looked at the Government's White Paper and at what the Government were proposing. There were changes when the Bill was published but strictly speaking, pre-legislative scrutiny did not happen.

Paul Tyler: I accept the point. Strictly speaking, the hon. Gentleman is right. Pre-legislative scrutiny implies a draft Bill coming before a Committee and then going through the normal legislative process.

John Reid: In case there is any confusion, may I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Standing Order is correct? It is one carry-over per motion, not one per Session.

Paul Tyler: The reason that I am so concerned that we look at the principles is that it is the first time that this particular procedure has been followed. It is extremely important to get it right. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for endorsing my interpretation.
	As I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow will catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair in the subsequent debate to deal with details of the Bill. I and my colleagues believe that there is an opportunity and a need for carry-over in certain circumstances to avoid the confusion that we have often had when there has been a great bunch-up of legislation at the end of the sessional programme. We believe that there are great opportunities for developing consensus across the House on the handling of our business. That will benefit not only hon. Members but those whom we represent, who are clearly looking for a better product than we have been able to produce in recent years. However, we require full consent and endorsement, and full implementation not just of the letter of the recommendations put to the House on 29 October but of the spirit.
	As I say, I hope that the Leader of the House will revisit the full report of the Modernisation Committee and the full assurances given by his predecessor to the House on 29 October, not only so that we can have positive assurances about what the Bill will do, and what will be done in the coming Session to improve its evident inadequacies, but so that we can have cross-party agreement about the way in which our business is handled in the House. There is much room for improvement.

Paul Beresford: When the Bill disappeared off the face of the earth, or at least I thought that it had, there was considerable relief. I thought that finally, despite the Minister's protestations, he had bowed to the people sitting behind him. The Bill was a mistake. Sadly, it has reappeared today. My second, hopeful choice is that there will be major changes to the Bill, taking some notice of the opposition: I mean not just the Opposition in the House but that outside. However, it does not sound as if that will be the story. It looks as though new bits will be added and that a complex and difficult Bill will be made several times worse.
	Apart from the Ministers by those who were heavily whipped, the Bill as it relates to England has been accepted as centralising and extremely bureaucratic. It is slowing planning and planning procedures. It is yet another blow to local government. As its Chairman has mentioned, the Select Committee essentially condemned it. He said that we favoured organic change—I think that that was the phrase. That is a delicate way of putting it. Perhaps his memory is a little like Nelson's eyesight, conveniently. The Bill was shredded by many of those who reacted to the Select Committee's request for information and consideration, and by many of those who protested when it received a Second Reading and went on to the Committee stage.
	What perhaps intrigued me most was that, when the Select Committee was looking at the Bill during the inquiry, one morning, the planning Minister from the Welsh Assembly arrived and made it clear that, from her point of view, essentially, the planning procedures as they stood worked. A few minor changes around the edges here and there were mentioned but a total shake-up was not called for. After that lady finished speaking to the Select Committee, the Minister from the other place spoke. He was typically dramatic. Anyone who knows him would anticipate that from him. There was much arm waving. Adjectives were used heavily. He said that the Bill was going to sweep away all before it.
	Many of us had anticipated that, because we had seen that Minister in the Back-Bench local government committee. He told those interested, who included many ex-planning Ministers, that the Bill was the best thing since sliced bread, it was going to rejuvenate everything and that he understood planning now because he had been planning Minister for six weeks. At the very best, there were wry smiles and many wishes of good luck. When the Bill was introduced, an awful situation was landed upon us. My reason for opposing the motion is that there is an opportunity for the Bill to disappear for a total rethink and for Ministers to recognise that dogmatically to push ahead with it is to go against the clear thinking and reaction of local government, which will have to implement it.
	Local government planners are dismayed. The House Builders Federation and the builders themselves are dismayed. The Council for the Protection of Rural England is dismayed. Quietly, many of the Minister's Back Benchers are dismayed. Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been notoriously bent on centralisation. Similar warnings were given on the best value Bill, the Local Government Bill, the funding formula and other measures but they have been ignored. Interestingly, if one looks at those previous Bills, many of the predictions are slowly being recognised by Ministers. Those of us who are protesting today and who will vote against the motion are asking Ministers to recognise that they have made a mistake, that there is some genuine and thoughtful opposition and to take the opportunity to forget the Bill and to come back again with something infinitely more sensible that will speed up planning procedures rather than delay them.

Sydney Chapman: I can, I hope, be reasonably brief because much of what I was going to say has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). Certain facts about the Bill are beyond dispute. In Committee, we had only 12 short sittings. A sitting lasted not more than two and a half hours. Only 24 of the 90 clauses were considered; of the other 66, 64 at least were not considered at all. I think that it is beyond dispute—I hope that the Minister will back me up on this—that there was no filibustering. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) was not on the Committee. Because of his vast experience in these matters, he would have been a considerable help to the Committee. He would have seen that there was no filibustering. The only disruption, if my memory serves me correctly, was when we had to adjourn the Committee to vote on the Floor of the House. That time was taken off the two and a half hours.
	In case there is any misunderstanding, I have been an advocate of every Bill being timetabled ever since I first came to the House in 1970. My quarrel with the Government is that, with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, as with so many others they have introduced, there has been totally inadequate time to consider the provisions in Committee. The Bill is important as well as controversial. During the all too short Committee stage, the Government indicated that they had second thoughts and would look again at certain important issues.
	I want to make my point by asking some short, direct questions, and when the Minister sums up, I hope that he can give the House the answers. If the Bill is to be recommitted, will it be possible to consider all the provisions? If not, will not only the new provisions introduced, but the 66 clauses that were not adequately discussed—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating the recommital, rather than the carry-over. Perhaps he could address his remarks to the motion.

Sydney Chapman: I beg both your pardon and the House's pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker; perhaps I got a little confused by the three separate motions that we are considering this afternoon. However, the Government are clearly going to add provisions to the Bill, and I want to know whether they are going to change any of the existing ones in the light of the discussions that have taken place.
	The best course of action that the Government should take, and indeed could take, is to withdraw the current Bill and publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by either the Select Committee or even a Special Standing Committee. Given that there are probably only eight or nine weeks of this Session to go, they should introduce the revised Bill in the new Session, subject to what is said about the draft version. I am sure that that would be the best way to proceed on what is a very important and controversial Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is one of the most knowledgeable people in this House on planning and associated matters. He is not only a qualified architect, but a member of bodies such as the Royal Town Planning Institute. Does he agree with me that the Homes Bill, which ran out of time, constitutes a good precedent for what he has just said? It was not particularly good and contained controversial measures in respect of the seller's pack. The Government started from scratch and brought it back as a new and much better Bill—the Homelessness Bill—in the next Session. Should that not be a precedent for this Bill?

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend has recorded the precept for what I believe should become a very good practice. There have been four months between consideration of the Bill in Committee and today's debate, with no consideration on Report. A lot has happened to me in that time. My hon. Friend kindly referred to my being a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, but in fact I am now a retired fellow of that organisation. I ask the Government seriously to consider withdrawing the current Bill, even at this eleventh hour, and introducing a new one in the next Session.

Mark Hoban: I wish to amplify the concern, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), about the uncertainty that carry-over of the Bill will give rise to among borough councils. In particular, I cite the example of my own Fareham borough council, whose existing local plan expires in 2006. In April, officials from the Government office for the south-east advised the council that it needed to use elements in the Bill before us to go through the process of drawing up what they said should be a local development framework, thereby mirroring the language in the Bill. They also highlighted the fact that various other elements of the Bill should be incorporated as part of the preparation of the LDF. They referred to the need for the regional spatial strategy, the potential of a sub-regional strategy for south Hampshire in informing LDF preparation, and the need for an accompanying statement of community involvement.
	For some borough councils whose plans expire in 2006, the carry-over of this Bill raises the issue of what they should do next. Do they follow the guidance set out in previous planning legislation, or the guidance set out in the Bill? There is no guarantee that the Bill will be passed in its current form, or that these components will still be there when it becomes law. Councils throughout the country will be seeking an assurance from the Minister today on what action they should take. It is certainly the view of Fareham borough council that the Bill needs to be in force in March 2005—the scheduled date for publication of the draft LDF for Fareham. Along with other borough councils, developers and residents, Fareham borough council is looking for certainty from this process. The carry-over of the Bill puts that certainty at risk, and the Government need to provide much greater explanation of their intentions for its future shape, particularly in the light of the Chancellor's comments during yesterday's statement on the euro.

Eric Forth: This debate justifies our very worst fears about the whole concept of carry-over, which, of course, was introduced under the ghastly rubric of modernisation. Some of us have come to despise that word, because it is reached for increasingly readily by those who want to diminish the effectiveness of this House of Commons with regard to the Government of the day.
	In a peculiar way, this motion has managed to combine cock-up and conspiracy. We used to think that they were alternatives in the political lexicon, but this motion involves a combination of the two concepts. What started as a legislative cock-up has had to be translated by the Government into a conspiracy in order to try to persuade us that it is all supposed to be for the good, which it patently is not.
	I want to refute in the clearest possible terms the reasons that the Leader of the House gave for this motion. He began by saying that there was enormous pressure of business; indeed, it was one of his main arguments. Any of us who spends time in this House—I wish that all Members did so, but sadly they do not; these days only a proportion do so—will be all too well aware that the one thing that the Government have not experienced in the calendar year of 2003 is pressure of business.
	Goodness knows, we seem to move effortlessly from one recess to another. Friday sittings, other than those for private Member's Bills, have been abolished. We now all rush to go home early every evening. So although the Government say that we have pressure of business and pressure of time, that is patently not the case. Even when we are here, we have an endless succession of undoubtedly important—and to many, undoubtedly welcome—debates on all sorts of subjects. Yes, there were debates on Iraq, as there should have been, and there were other debates as well. But pressure of business is the one thing that the Government do not have in this Parliament, particularly in this Session.
	The Leader of the House then said—with impertinence, if I may say so—that he wants to give greater opportunity for scrutiny. In an admirable opening speech for the official Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out that the very opposite is the case, and that generically and systematically, under the so-called modernisation process, the Government are determined arbitrarily and increasingly to restrict the amount of debate available to Members of Parliament—Opposition Members, and, indeed, Government Members—in properly scrutinising Bills.
	That was added to by the impertinence of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who said with complete insouciance and with an absolutely straight face that the Opposition's job is to fit their deliberations into the artificial straitjacket imposed by the Government. That may be welcome to modernisers, but it is certainly a new doctrine as far as I am concerned. Arising directly from this motion appears to be the idea that we should do things very differently from how we did them in the good old days, when the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the then Opposition. The idea then was that the Opposition determined the timetable of legislation. Only when some 150 to 200 hours had been spent on major Bills—the hon. Gentleman will remember this—did the Government reluctantly reach for the guillotine. Now we have the systematic use of the guillotine, viciously timetabling Bills from the outset.

Matthew Green: I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but if that is the case why was there no request from the Conservatives to extend sittings in Committee beyond 7 o'clock, given that some sittings could have been so extended if the Committee had wished?

Eric Forth: I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that there was such a request, and I would hope that he systematically asks for extra time in all Committees, in order to provide for more scrutiny. However, I am not going to get involved in a factual dispute; my hon. Friend will doubtless sort this out later with the Minister—outside, in the traditional way.
	My point is more fundamental. The Government—in the shape of the Leader of the House and, doubtless, in a moment, the Minister—stand before us and arbitrarily restrict the time available for scrutiny in Committee. The Bill is then allowed to lapse and sit idle for months on end while the Government are twiddling their thumbs and offering any number of recesses. The Leader of the House then says that the motion is necessary and that the Bill has to be carried over into another Session because it has not been adequately scrutinised. We certainly agree with that. The Government claim that they are being generous and provide more time in a new Session. That amounts to, and has confirmed, the very worst of our fears about what the carry-over concept would produce.
	We then heard the contribution of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Liberal Democrats are known for many attributes, but I shall not go into many of them today. However, the hon. Gentleman rather touchingly displayed one that I have noticed in him before—a sort of generous naivety. He complained that when he signed up to all this modernisation nonsense, he thought that the Government would consult him about what would happen.

Paul Tyler: rose—

Eric Forth: Just a moment, I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman then said, rather pathetically—I almost felt sorry for him—that he felt that he had not been properly consulted, that the Government seemed to be doing exactly what they pleased, and that he, a representative of the Liberal Democrats, had been cut out of the whole process. All I can say is that he and his hon. Friends started out believing, from 1997 onwards, that they were partners with the Government, but it has come to a pretty pass now, has it not? I shall now give him an opportunity to deny my accusation of naivety.

Paul Tyler: I would never accuse the right hon. Gentleman of generosity, let alone naivety, but has he actually read the Modernisation Committee's report? If he had, he would know that his hon. Friends took exactly the same view as I did.

Eric Forth: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that I did not serve on that Committee? I have never regretted that decision for a moment—though I have no doubt that it does admirable work.

Paul Tyler: Faint praise.

Eric Forth: That will look okay in Hansard.
	The chain of events are all closely and causally related, and they all come back time and again to the fundamental fact that the Government have been determined systematically to reduce the House's ability properly to scrutinise legislation. The Government also want to combine the restriction of time available in Committee with the flexibility to allow them to carry Bills over from one Session to another whenever they see fit. This is the first explicit example, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold pointed out in his opening speech, it has come about for the worst reasons. That is why we are compelled to resist the motion.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend fails to mention the double-edged sword: the Leader of the House says that more time is available, but there is more to look into.

Eric Forth: Yes, indeed. The facts are clear. Sadly, in respect of this large and important Bill, the Committee was able to scrutinise only a small proportion of its contents. That pattern is repeated time and again and ever more systematically. The reason for it is not filibustering by the Opposition. We do not need to filibuster. Goodness knows, some of us are perfectly capable of it from time to time, and I have made a modest contribution to it myself, so I know whereof I speak. However, we do not have to do it any more. All we have to do is the proper and responsible job of the official Opposition—attempting to scrutinise legislation, representing legitimate outside interests, looking for mistakes and errors and trying to improve legislation. Yet on almost every occasion, we run out of time because the Government have already taken a view at the beginning of every Bill about how much time it should take to consider it. According to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the Chairman of the Select Committee, we the Opposition should fit ourselves into that Government time. That is not how I envisage the relationship between the House and the Government, or, indeed, the Opposition and the Government.
	It is perfectly clear that the motion is before us for the wrong reasons. If we were to agree to it, we would be endorsing the views of the Leader of the House, which we most certainly do not. We would also be setting a precedent, whereby the Government could declare that carry-over is passing seamlessly into the proceedings of the House and can therefore legitimately be returned to time and again. That is not the case. We resist it strongly.
	I shall now conclude in order to give the Minister the maximum possible time in this short debate, which I hope he will use to the full to answer the substantial questions put to him by my hon. Friends, by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the eminent Chairman of the Select Committee, and by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.

Tony McNulty: I start by thanking the Opposition for their magnanimity, which is very refreshing. I shall try to deal—if not by the tail of this debate, then at the start of the next one—with the issues that have been raised and to provide detail on the specific questions.
	This is not by any means a deeply flawed and poorly drafted Bill. The Opposition can have their day on that, but it is not. When the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) talked about Lord Lucan being reported missing, I thought that he was referring to the Plaid Cymru contribution to the Standing Committee, which had 12 sittings without the Plaid Cymru Member once showing his face. That is a matter of some regret.
	There has been a degree of confusion about whether pre-legislative scrutiny took place. In fact, what occurred—the White Paper, consultation and passing responses to the Select Committee—worked well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) suggested, it informed the Bill in many respects. The hon. Member for Cotswold traduces the consultation process, but the professions and everyone else applauded us for the whole process from Green Paper to the Bill and for many of the changes therein. I shall return to the transition period later.
	I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) who, I freely admit, is the leading expert in the Chamber on planning in the professional sense, as he showed time and again in Committee. I recall that we had great fun on the Greater London Authority Bill, which went on for a considerable period. The notion of having a consolidation Bill at some stage is attractive, in view of the many changes made, but that is not a matter for me.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish made an important point about the transition. We originally expected commencement to come into force in spring 2004, with hoped-for Royal Assent by March 2004. If the subsequent motion is passed, we expect the new system to be up and running by June, so commencement should be but a couple of months delayed. Reasonable points were made about the problems of local planning authorities in the coming months or years in respect of transition. We cannot presume the will of Parliament, but if the motions are secured, we will write to local authorities in the next couple of weeks to set out clearly the detailed transitional arrangements for the new system.
	Before I move on to the substance of the reasons why we need a roll-over, I want to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that, far from slowing down the delivery mechanisms for the Thames gateway and sustainable communities, what we are doing will speed up the process and bind any number of partners in the public or private sector into the process. I shall return to that matter shortly or, if necessary, in the next debate. As an aside, I might mention that although my visit has been cancelled twice, and I have yet to get to the glory that is BedZED down in Sutton, I agree with my hon. Friend that building regulations are an appropriate way, among others, to secure ecologically and environmentally sound developments.
	I note the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but as the Leader of the House said, this is an exception to the spirit of our Standing Orders relating to roll-overs.
	I admire the consistency and honesty of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I assume that he opposes this and the subsequent motion because he thinks that this is a horrible little Bill. That is a perfectly reasonable position, but I have to tell him that local government does not agree and certainly does not greet the £350 million planning delivery grant with dismay.
	In answer to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—although this is a matter for debate, which does not get us anywhere and is certainly not germane to the motion—let me be polite and say that the extent to which we dwelt, at length and ad nauseam, on terminal 5 at Heathrow in Committee could by some less than generous souls be called filibustering, at worst, or at best irrelevant. We had a tad too much of that in Committee. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the roll-over would mean that the whole Bill would be recommitted for decision, and the answer is yes. We could have been pernickety and said that only the clauses that will be affected by amendment and concession, and the new clauses, will be recommitted, but we have said that we will send the whole Bill back. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether any changes had been made to the substance of the Bill since the end of the Committee's consideration, and again the answer is yes.
	I shall pass on the invitation from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to talk about the confluence of cock-up and conspiracy, but I admire his consistency. He is against timetabling and against modernisation in all its forms and glory, and that is a reasonable position.
	I shall go into more detail on the substance on the next motion, as I explain why we need the extra six months, but the bulk of the amendments that we will table for the consideration of the reconvened Standing Committee will be technical amendments to the existing Bill—as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said—including my final and grudging concession that "complusory" and "satisified" are not proper words. The Bill has been trawled for other spelling mistakes, and I promised a vicious attack on parliamentary counsel, but there were no others. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) who has done the House and the planning profession great service by recognising those two spelling mistakes.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister now concede that he should have accepted my amendments at the time?

Tony McNulty: Absolutely not. Call me a purist, but there could have been 12 mistakes. Far be it from me to assume that the subsequent Government amendments would be accepted. It was far more appropriate that the hon. Gentleman showed us the way, and we have now gone through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb. As one might have anticipated from the Liberal Democrats, they have elevated pedantry to an art form. That is not a huge surprise.
	Most of the amendments to the Bill will be technical or tidying up ones, but I am more than happy to go through the detail with Opposition Front Benchers at a later stage.

Sydney Chapman: If the motions are passed, can the Minister tell the House when the new revised Bill will be printed?

Tony McNulty: I shall come to that point in a moment. About a third of the amendments will be technical or drafting. A further third will be as a consequence of some of the concessions that I said that we would look at, such as the issue of local development orders that lift planning restrictions in a particular area. When the local development order was lifted, the question was at what point the restrictions would be reimposed if parts of the zone were at various stages of development and building. The hon. Member for Mole Valley and others made that point. In the context of the joint system that may or may not be in place between statement and development principle, and outline planning permission, there was some confusion, not least in my mind, and some concern was expressed by the professions. We will consider that issue. We will also consider the period of consent, the loss payment changes in compulsory purchase cases and other issues. I would be happy to talk through those changes with hon. Members.
	As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, to some extent the delay has allowed us to consider Crown immunity in detail. We have wanted to legislate on that issue for some time, and it has been in our manifesto since 1994. A dozen or 15 clauses will be added on that subject, and some six or seven further will tidy up—at the behest not least of the hon. Member for Cotswold—the compulsory purchase element of the Bill. We will perform all the tidying up that can be done this side of the Law Commission reporting. There will also be one, or at most two, new clauses on unitary development corporations and what they can do to be far more responsive to local authorities.
	I would envisage that all that hangs on the Bill—such as guidance, circulars and statutory instruments—will be presented in draft form for consideration early after we return from the recess, and certainly well before the Bill is recommitted.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) raised an important point. If the Government's intention is to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee as soon as we return in September, it is important that the Bill be published before we start the recess, so that we can table amendments.

Tony McNulty: I am not sure when the Bill will be printed, but I will find out and pass the information to the hon. Gentleman. I will ensure that the Bill is printed in good time, because I accept his point. I would envisage that the statutory instruments and other elements will be published by September and that all the necessary Government amendments will be tabled then, to allow time for consideration. [Interruption.] Yes, we are. We are sitting for two weeks in September, because of modernisation. I envisage that the recommittal of the Bill will happen in October, so that there will be plenty of time. I am more than happy to meet Opposition Front Benchers in September or before the end of the recess to give further details.
	The Committee will consider technical amendments and Government concessions, compulsory purchase orders, unitary development corporations and Crown immunity. That is four elements, rather than six, as the hon. Member for Cotswold suggested. It is in the Government's interest that the new elements, which will constitute about a third of the overall package of elements for consideration—[Interruption.] I have been passed a piece of paper and it has thrown me entirely. I apologise.
	It is in our interests to secure the new elements in Committee, but it is not for me to talk about the consideration of proceedings motion. I used to be a member of the dark brotherhood, but I am no longer involved in the usual channels. However, in this case, I would argue for a less rigorous approach than the way in which the traditional 12 sessions were carved up the first time. My only caveat would be that the Government should secure discussion of the newer elements, after which we would be fairly relaxed. We can also discuss that point.
	The main question is whether the Bill will be much better after a further eight sessions of scrutiny and some Government amendments. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Will the planning process be better for the carry-over being passed? Again, the answer is yes. When the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House on Report, after recommittal and Committee stage, I hope that it will be as clean as possible and that we will have no Government amendments, let alone whole screeds of them. Obviously, however, I cannot guarantee that. That must be a consequence of significant further scrutiny in Committee.

Eric Forth: Dream on.

Tony McNulty: I freely accept that I am generously naive. Generosity may be difficult for me, but I can do naiveté quite well.
	At the end of the process of carry-over and productive scrutiny, the Bill in all its glory will be far stronger, as will the planning system. If the Opposition join me in that scrutiny, I will welcome that. I should love to be able to say that the 12 weeks that we spent in Committee were terrific fun, but they were not. It was reassuring that Plaid Cymru Members did not bother to turn up at all. I should be interested to be a fly on the wall when they use the usual channels to ask for representation for nationalists in the eight sittings that will be held but, again, I am pleased to say that that is not a matter for me.
	The order is an exception to the normal interpretation of Standing Orders in respect of carry-over, but it will mean that an important piece of legislation will receive greater scrutiny by the House. As a consequence the Bill will be far better—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [29 October 2002].
	The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 162.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That if at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (Extension of Period for Proceedings)

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That if the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is carried over to the next Session of Parliament, the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (10) of the Order of the House of 29th October 2002 shall be extended by the period of six months.
	In explaining the need for a six-month extension, I shall return to some of the detail that I thought more appropriate to this debate than the one that we have just held. First, however, I shall give some background.
	In paragraph 39 of its report, the Modernisation Committee recommended
	"that, for the experimental period on carry-over, if a Bill is not completed or arrives from the Lords more than twelve months after its introduction, it should not be further proceeded with in the Commons unless a fresh programme motion, debatable for one and a half hours, had been passed."
	As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated earlier, we do not anticipate that the Bill will have completed its passage through the other House by 4 December—its one-year anniversary, the year after its introduction. We are, therefore, asking the House to agree to an extension motion to allow proceedings on the Bill to continue for up to a further six months, until 4 June 2004, although, as I mentioned earlier, in practice we hope that the Bill will achieve Royal Assent by the end of March.

Eric Forth: If by some ghastly mistake or accident the Bill had not completed its passage by the six months now being set down, is the Minister able to say whether it would fall?

Tony McNulty: I do not think that is the case according to the procedures of the House. I shall do all in my power, as will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, to ensure that the March date is met rather than waiting until June.

Edward Davey: Can the Minister tell us what has been happening since 14 May and his announcement today of this rather prolonged timetable? I asked him if he could tell us when the House would consider the Bill on Report. He replied:
	"It is certainly still our intention to get that Bill approved and on the statute book as soon as we possibly can."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 298.]
	What has changed?

Tony McNulty: Clearly, given the motions that we are discussing, not a lot. It remains the case, none the less, that I would like the Bill to be dispatched from both Houses at the earliest possible opportunity.
	With the indulgence of the House, may I explain the need for the six-month extension by reference to two things? First, as I promised, I shall go into more detail about the amendments and, secondly, I shall talk about the timetable that we envisage, although—heaven knows—as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggests, any number of things can happen at any time.

John Redwood: Following the Chancellor's extraordinary announcement yesterday that we have to concrete over the south-east in order to get ready for the euro, is it not the case that the whole Bill will have to be rewritten to drive even more houses on to reluctant south-eastern councils? That is the true reason—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not the subject of the motion under discussion.

Tony McNulty: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is right to put on record that the Chancellor's statement was extraordinary. Indeed, it was; it was historic. However, the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's comments do not gel terribly well with those made by his Opposition Front-Bench colleagues—they think that we are already concreting over the south, whatever the Chancellor said yesterday. The point is not helpful, and it is certain that the debate on Second Reading and in Committee will be of a far higher calibre than that intervention.
	As I said, currently we have it in mind to table about 70 amendments on four themes: technical and concessionary provisions; Crown immunity; compulsory purchase; and urban development corporations. I shall take them in reverse order.

Lembit �pik: Is there any scope in the Bill to devolve planning decisions on energy production to the Welsh Assembly? I am not sure whether that is possible; I ask for the sake of clarification.

Tony McNulty: I suspect that, even though the Bill has a Welsh section, that suggestion is not appropriate, but I shall consider it with my colleagues in the Wales Office and get back to the hon. Gentleman about it.
	All that we seek to do with our delivery mechanisms in relation to urban development corporations and the Thames gateway is to reconfigure the legislation so that the UDC is able to delegate to the lowest possible level in its areas of activity, rather than having a UDC area-wide focus. That will work very well with what we anticipate doing in terms of household and routine planning applications staying with the local planning authority and only the most strategic decisions going up to the UDC.

Edward Davey: The Minister has told the House what new measures the Government intend to add to the Bill when it is re-committed, but will he tell the House whether the Government intend to make any change to those items that are already in the Bill?

Tony McNulty: With the greatest respect, I have already said, in the previous debate and now that the amendments relate to four areas, which is why we need the six-month extensionfirst, technical and concessionary changes to the existing Bill; secondly, Crown immunity; thirdly, compulsory purchase; and fourthly, UDCs. With the indulgence of the House, I shall take them in reverse order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would keep up and listen.

Andrew Bennett: I wish to ask for an assurance. When those of us who serve on the Select Committee went to Dartford eight or nine years ago, we were concerned that very little progress had been made in the first five years after the creation of the gateway in that part of it covered by Dartford. More recently, Dartford appears to have got its act together. Can the Minister assure us that the establishment of the UDC responsible for the Thames gateway will in no way slow down the building of extra housing in Dartford?

Tony McNulty: At the risk of my straying beyond the extension of the period for proceedings, my hon. Friend can have that absolute assurance. Thurrock and the east London elements of the gateway are the only two areas covered by the UDC, so it will not delay anything in Dartford. Indeed, much of north Kent has opted for the urban regeneration company and partnership model.
	We envisage that such changes to the relevant part of the Bill will involve two clauses at most and, probably, just one. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has said in the previous debate and in Committee, there is much more still to do in relation to compulsory purchase. Sadly, we cannot do much more this side of the Law Commission report, as I said earlier, but we further tidy up compulsory purchase, having been afforded this opportunity to do so. We shall push forward the compulsory purchase elements of the Bill, with perhaps a further seven clauses. They may be substantive and complex, like those in relation to the UDC, but again, their scope will be fairly limited.
	Crown immunity is another complex issue about which we have had much to-ing and fro-ing with Crown authorities in general, but we now have the opportunity to deal with it in the context of the Bill. The measures relating to it are probably the most complex of all the new material that we want to introduce and will probably account for something in the order of 15 changes. I give those rough figures in the context of some laxity as and when we reach consideration in Committee. I do not want anyone to hang me, saying, You promised only 15 Crown immunity changes, and there are 16, or whatever the number is. So I give such figures just as a rough estimate, but there may be about 24 clauses on new material not discussed thus far.
	The remaining 45-odd clauses to be introduced are either technical or involve concessions. Forty-five is a large number, but at least 24 or morea good half of themrelate to the its, the developments, the apostrophes and the words conclusory and satisfasciation, or whatever they were. Those absolutely technical amendments relate purely to such things and nothing more. So half of those 45 amendments simply relate to technical, tidying-up changes. Although they are of no substance at all, they are technically necessary.

Eric Forth: I hope that the Minister is not implying that, simply because he, the Minister, or the Government designate clauses or amendments as technical or involving concessions, they need have no consideration or scrutiny in Committee. I hope that he would agree that even if he simply describes them as such, others might take a different viewbut in any case, they too need scrutiny.

Tony McNulty: Absolutely. I do not disagree. That is one of the fundamental reasons why I am more than happy for the whole Bill to be recommitted. Many Government amendments to many clauses will go entirely unscathed, but I thought that it would be churlish, pedantic and, probably, an abuse of the House to say that we should not discuss them further, irrespective of whether they were discussed in the previous 12 sittings. The whole Bill will be recommitted as it is, and it will be entirely up to the Committee to decide whether the technical changes or those involving concessions, as I describe them purely for shorthand, are worthy of extensive scrutiny. So I fully concur with the right hon. Gentleman.

Edward Davey: I wish to ask the Minister something for the sake of clarification. If I understood him correctly, he said that he would table 45 new clauses to deal with technical problems, including spelling errors. Did he mean 45 new clauses or 45 amendments?

Tony McNulty: Given that savage intervention in terms of Liberal Democrat scrutiny, I hope that the hon. Gentleman serves on the Committee that considers the Bill. Of course I meant amendments, not new clausesso well spotted and congratulations.

Tom Levitt: I spotted that long before.

Tony McNulty: As my Parliamentary Private Secretary says, he spotted that long before the hon. Gentleman. He was about 10 seconds ahead of him. Yah-boo, is perhaps an appropriate response to the Liberal Democrats.
	As I suggested earlier, the last element is made up of concessionsagain, 20-odd clausesbut those who serve on the Standing Committee will know that they range from adding the words the planning office development to simply development in clause 15. As I said earlier on the revocation of local development orders, there was a useful debate in Committee about what happens when a local development order is revoked but planning or development was already ongoing when the curtain came down and the planning powers were restored. We shall consider that issue again, and will make some progress. The same will apply to lost payment charges and the notion of statements of development in principle against outline planning permission, about which there was also a robust debate and, as I said earlier, a good deal of confusionnot least my ownso we have looked at that too, because the professions have asked us to do so.
	Some of the suggestions have come from stakeholders, but many have come from the hon. Member for Cotswold or others. Those changes will involve not new material, but concessions in that regard. However, I fully accept what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said: it is not for me to say what level of scrutiny or otherwise those amendments should receive, save for the caveat that I mentioned at the end of my previous speech.

Paul Tyler: In the previous debate, the Minister described himself as a former member of the dark brotherhood of the Government Whips Office. I was assured during the Division that in fact, he is an honorary life member. Can I ask him please to turn his back on his past? When he comes to discuss which parts of the Bill need most scrutiny, he should listen very carefully to his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who said in terms in the previous debate that it should be up to the Opposition parties, rather than the Government, to discuss what time should be allocated to which parts of the Bill. Will the Minister accept that as a general principle?

Tony McNulty: That leads me neatly to the caveat from the previous debate that I was about to repeat. I am more than happy and extremely relaxed about how much time in the eight sittings is afforded to which parts of the Bill. That is a matter for the House, the respective parties and the usual channels. The only caveat that I added was that it is appropriate that we work to secure a set amount of time in those eight sittings for the new business. Beyond that, I am very relaxed, so we can talk about such things further in the usual channels and in extensive consultation before consideration in Committee. I am more than happy to do that too, but such things depend on the issues' complexity.
	In the context of the various degrees of novelty involved in all those issues, I will undertake to find out whether it is at all possible to introduce the 45 technical amendments at the earliest opportunityI hope, before the House rises for the summerso that hon. Members can at least consider them in some detail before we return after the recess.
	I want to listen to what other hon. Members have to say, rather than going on at length myself, but I wish to make two further points. First, I repeat that those hon. Members who served on the Committee will understand that this was a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, like previous planning legislation, in the sense that a number of circulars, statutory instruments and regulations follow from its provisions. I will also undertake to make sure, as far as possible, that all of those are introduced by September and prior to the Bill being recommitted, which is important in the context of the six-month extension. In terms of the six-month extension, I would envisage tabling all the amendments that the Government need to dispatch to the recommitted Committee by September, although that is a matter of discussion with programme managers and the usual channels. Eight further sittings of the Committee are to take place in October.
	I do not envisage that the remaining stages of the House's consideration will happen this side of the Queen's Speech, but as soon as possible afterwardswhich is why the extension of the period for the proceedings is necessary. Subsequently, I hope that it will be committed to the other place for safe dispatch and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent by February or March. I hope that that sort of timetable, allowed by the extension of proceedings, permits sufficient time for hon. Members to explore amendments to the existing Bill and new materials. I repeat that I am more than happy to discuss those at length with the respective Front-Benchers. I reserve the rightthis will probably get me into troublenot to talk to Plaid Cymru Members about it, as none of them could be bothered to turn up for the 12 sittings on the existing Bill. I would prefer the LiberalsI might regret this, toorather than the nationalists to take those two spots on the Committee. God knows, one Liberal is enough on a Committee, as everyone will agree.
	I would agree gently with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that one never leaves the brotherhood, and I am more than happy to be an honorary life member. As far as it is in my power, in discussion with the usual channels on my side and more generally, I foresee a limited Committee stage, with the caveat that some time will be secured at the start for new business. In that context, I commend the motionit will be met with approbation and consensus, I am sureto the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise right hon. and hon. Members that the terms of the motion are narrow, and while it would be appropriate to discuss the volume of the contents of such a Bill, it would not be appropriate to discuss the merits of those contents.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is helpful advice, for which I am sure that all Members are grateful. Can you confirm, however, that it would be in order to cover the points made by the Minister in his helpful opening speech, and that responses to or questions about those points would be appropriate and in order? I hope that you are able to confirm that within the constraints that you have set out.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can reply to the right hon. Gentleman that as long as those remarks are somewhat restrained, that would be appropriate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this second carry-over motion. We have already discussed the first carry-over motion, which allows 12 months for all proceedings on the Bill to be concluded. We are now adding to that a further six months. If the Bill has not completed all its legislative stages, including that in the other place, by 4 June, as the Bill had its First Reading in this House on 4 December 2002, an interesting question arises as to whether the Bill falls or whether the Government can bring forward a further motion giving themselves another six months. Greater experts than I am will have to answer that at some stage.
	A little light has been cast in the previous debate, which is helpful, and the Minister has helpfully told us what is likely to be in the new Bill. To reiterate, the Bill has been subject to some of the greatest scrutiny that I can remember in the 11 years that I have been in Parliament. Four huge tomes of consultation were introduced as long ago as December 2001; the Bill was subject to its Select Committee pre-legislative scrutiny last yearI remind the House of my quote in the previous motionand it received no great approbation from that all-party Committee. The core part of my earlier quote was that 88 per cent. of respondents to that Select Committee pre-legislative scrutiny did not support the replacement of local plans and unitary development plans with local development frameworks, and the abolition of county structure plans was supported by just 10 per cent. of respondents. Therefore, the Bill was highly contentious before it even went into Committee.
	The Bill received its First Reading on 4 December 2002, as I have said, and according to my recollection, the Government were in a huge hurry to get the Bill on the statute book. From 4 December, they moved to getting it through 12 Committee sittings by 28 January. Since 28 January, we have heard nothing. The reason for that is nothing to do with external eventsthe Leader of the House referred to the war, and cited and prayed in aid every other excusebut because the Government have finally twigged. They would not listen to us in Committee, but they have listened to the outside experts who have begun to point out to them the huge number of flaws in the Bill.
	It is no wonder that this second motion is being brought before the House, as I do not see how we will get through the timetable that the Government have set us. As the Minister has just told us, the Government are going to include four major extra facets in the Bill: the technical amendments, the Crown immunity, the extra mechanism in the compulsory purchase section, which is highly technical, and changes relating to the urban development corporation. The Minister said that the Crown immunity and compulsory purchase elementsjust two matterswould make up 25 amendments, and the remaining two would make up 45 amendments. Those are major technical amendments. Effectively, those amendments amount to almost as much as is currently contained in the Bill. We are being asked to consider all those, however, plus the whole of the existing Bill, in eight sittings, not 12, which the Government gave us previously. I have already told the House that less than a third of the existing Bill was scrutinised in Committee30 clauses of 70 and only one schedule of sevenand some very important parts were never scrutinised. I am not surprised that the Government need a further six months.
	The problem is that there is already uncertainty in the planning community in relation to these huge changes, which, as all the experts acknowledge, virtually amount to rewriting the planning system rather than modifying it, which we would have preferred. Providing this extra time is creating further uncertainty. As I pointed out time after time in Committee, if I were a planner working in a county councilknowing that my strategic planning role would be abolished by the Billand I received an offer from the private sector or elsewhere, given the uncertainty surrounding the whole system, I would be tempted to move into an alternative job. That would be disastrous for the planning system, which is already grossly understaffed in many authorities, such as mine in the south of England, which has great difficulty in recruiting people of sufficient technical merit. This Bill, with the timetable and carry-over, will cause great difficulty to our planning system.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even worse in the counties, which feel that they may be abolished under the Government's plan for regional government

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is outside the scope of this motion.

John Gummer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reason why I asked that question was that my hon. Friend had rightly said that people in planning offices might find other jobs. I merely wanted to point out that that would be exacerbated where there were other pressures, too. I think that that was at least ancillary to what was being said.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, but I remind Members of the narrowness of this debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The principle of the Bill is laid out clearly by the Government, however, in the document that they have just produced, Sustainable Communities: Delivering Through PlanningProgress Report. In a recent letter, which I quoted previously, the Minister said that one aspect of the Bill would be some amendments on sustainable communities. Unless those provisions are somehow buried within the four categories, it looks as though measures on sustainable communities have been dropped.

Tony McNulty: That simply refers to the urban development corporation amendments that are required to secure much of what we need for growth areas under the sustainable communities plan. May I also point out that if the order lapses by 4 June, the matter is in the hands of the House? It could consider a motion to extend proceedings for another three or six months, but we shall not reach that stage.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I like the Minister's predictions because he is giving himself more hostages to fortune. He said illuminatingly that he does not expect any Government amendments to be tabled on Report. I suspect that those words will come back to haunt him in no uncertain manner, but we shall see what happens whether we have an extra six months or notthat will depend on whether the motion is passed.
	The Government intend the Bill to address four principles but it is likely to address only one, irrespective of whether we have extra time. They say:
	We are simplifying the plan structure
	but the Bill will not do that because they are introducing a new raft of provisions on regional planning. They say:
	We will ensure local plans will be in place more quickly
	but that will be difficult to achieve. Given the complexity of a Bill containing provisions on local development frameworks, local development documents, local development plans and a raft of other documents, it is unlikely that such plans will be in place more quickly.
	I agree with the following objective of the Bill:
	Teams of inspectors will be used for concurrent running of inquiries into major infrastructure projects, thereby saving time.
	I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be teams of inspectors. There was criticism about the time that the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry took, which I agreed with. From a national perspective, we need to speed up major infrastructure projects, which is a key aspect of the Bill.
	The Government's fourth aim is to introduce
	reforms to development control processes intended to streamline the system, give greater certainty over development which may be permitted, and deal with abuses.
	I am sure that that is their genuine aim, but the Bill will not achieve it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made a point that we shall have to address in Committee. The Chancellor is clearly interested in the amount of building that will occur in the south-east but the Bill does not address properly that subject, which is one of the most crucial planning issues that we currently face. Irrespective of whether we have extra time, how will the Bill deliver the size of development that will be needed in the south-east, where will such development take place, and will we have the proper infrastructure to achieve that?
	There will be uncertainty and the Minister must do all that he can to end the uncertainty experienced by businesses and the planning community. I hope that he will reconsider the time allowed in Committee because if the usual channels agreed to allow more time, we might be able to facilitate the Committee more sensibly so that its parliamentary scrutiny could be much better organised. Given that there will be 70 major amendments and new clauses and that all Opposition parties will table amendments, as we should, I do not understand how we will have sufficient time in Committee.
	Are the Government so keen to get the Bill on the statute book that will they give it top priority after the Queen's Speech? I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) in hoping that they will drop it altogether and come back with something more sensiblepigs might fly. I suspect that the Government will proceed with the Bill, but will the Minister reassure me that if the motion is passedI strongly urge my hon. Friends to oppose itReport and Third Reading will quickly follow the Committee stage? The planning and business communities would like such an assurance.
	That point brings us on to the next problem. There are no similar carry-over provisions in the other place. Given the technical nature of the Bill, I would not be surprised if the other place wanted to subject it to considerable scrutiny. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, I hope that it will receive considerable scrutiny in the other place because that will be needed if we are so constrained in Committee that we can do only a quarter of the job, as happened before. I assure the House that I shall give every possible assistance to Members of the other place by pointing out the Bill's omissions and lacunae.
	Will the Minister consider invoking the Parliament Act? There is considerable doubt about how it would operate following carry-over. That point is probably outside the remit of the motion but it is important given the Bill's timetable and the time at which it might reach the statute book. Many people are scratching their heads about today's proceedings and wondering why we have reached this position. The Government were in a dreadful hurry for the Bill to be given its Second Reading and to be considered in Committee, so I cannot understand what has happened since the end of January.
	The Standing Order, which must be renewed in the next Session, might need to be examined. Given that we are almost at the end of this Session, there is no way in which the Bill's stages could be completed under the 12-month procedureby 4 December 2003. If we intend to carry over Bills, the Standing Order should allow for the whole of the next Session to be available for their consideration. Carry-over provisions would be complete nonsense if the motions that we are considering today were not accepted. If the House did not pass this motionit has already passed the first motionthe Government would be in considerable difficulty because the Bill would not complete all its stages by 4 December 2003. We need a sensible examination of the drafting of the Standing Order to make it more practical.
	The Government hope that no amendments will be tabled on Report, so they will no doubt produce a timetable to allow only an hour or two on Report and an hour on Third Reading. I signal in advance that if the Government severely constrain scrutiny in Committee, we shall need plenty of time on Report, so I hope that they will not constrain the time allowed for it.
	I hope that the Government will make progress on the Bill. People outside who will have to operate under its provisions want progress because uncertainty is bad for everyone. The Government should give the Bill momentum, produce some certainty and publish the amendments as soon as possible. I hope that at least some amendments will be published before the recess. It is only reasonable that we have time to examine them because several of the provisions that we must consider, especially those on compulsory purchase, will be highly technical. I should have declared an interest as a charted surveyor who has practised in planning. I know that compulsory purchase is highly technical and I have no doubt that I shall want to take technical advice on the amendments relating to it.
	Will the Minister give us a little clarification on compulsory purchase? There was a rumour that the Law Commission was working on the nuts and bolts of compulsory purchase whereas the Bill deals only with the mechanism of compensation. The rumour was that the Government were thinking of introducing a separate compulsory purchase Bill to deal with the Law Commission's recommendations. Does the Minister intend to incorporate those into the Bill, which would make a further Bill less imminent?

Tony McNulty: As I suggested earlier, we will go further than we did in the existing Bill, but we cannot involve the Law Commission recommendations because the report will not be completed in time. We still anticipate the need for a fuller, more complex, compulsory purchase Bill to deal with the detail, as I think I said in Committee. The Bill under discussion will go further than the original Bill and tidy up aspects of planning and compulsory purchase before the report is published, but I anticipate that we will still need the second Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister's reply is helpful in that it clarifies the situation. However, it destroys part of the argument for delaying the Bill. As I understood it, one of the reasons for the delay was to give sufficient time to assimilate the Law Commission's recommendations. If that is not the case

Tony McNulty: It was never the case.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: But it was never the case that the Bill would be carried over. As I understood it, the huge rush to get the Bill through Committee was to get it on the statute book. The road to heaven is paved with good intentions. The Government may have had good intentions in the first place, but they have not been realised.
	We need to consider carefully something that has not been discussed enough. We have concentrated on the new material that will be in the Bill, which is obviously important because it will probably double its size, but we have not focused on whether there will be sufficient time to deal with what the Minister calls technical amendments. Those are highly important. We mentioned them time and again in the context of many issues, with the support of some of the foremost experts on planning, and they need proper scrutiny.
	There are a number of technical aspects, which I have touched on. Local development orders were barely discussedif at allin Committee. Concurrent planning applications, statement of development principles, outline planning permission, urban development corporations and simplified planning zones are all relevant. A raft of issues and technical subjects on compulsory purchase were not discussed in Committee because the timetable meant that the knives came down and the number of sittings was inadequate.
	Incidentally, we voted against the programme of 12 sittings. I can assure the Minister here and now that unless I am given different instructions from those more senior than I am, we will vote against the Government if they offer only eight sittings because those, too, will not be adequate.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend can count on it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I now have instructions from the shadow Leader of the House, so I am in a better position to give a firm commitment that we will vote against the programming of the Committee.
	We have a huge amount of work to do. We must consider whether the scrutiny that their lordships will undoubtedly want to give the Bill will mean that it can get on the statute book by the date set out in the timetable. The Minister has improved on the motion. It gives a deadline of 4 June 2004, but he anticipates it being on the statute book by March 2004. He is constraining their lordships even more.

Tony McNulty: I stick to the March deadline, but I mentioned it before I anticipated the idea of two Liberal Democrats serving on the Committee.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not sure whether that will double the number of amendments, but we shall see. It will probably treble or quadruple the amount of time taken up by Liberal Democrats. They have never knowingly undersold themselves when it comes to speaking. What could be said in one sentence takes the Liberal Democrats many sentences to say. However, no doubt you will rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I continue down that path.
	The core question is whether and when the Bill will be on the statute book and whether the extra six months will be sufficient. Their lordships will not begin to consider when they will scrutinise the Bill until after the Queen's Speech. Perhaps the Minister is more clairvoyant than the Opposition because we do not know when the Queen's Speech will be. Last year it took place towards the middle of November. No doubt their lordships will want to take a week or two before considering their own parliamentary timetable. It is my guess that they cannot start to consider the Bill before Christmas.
	The Minister is living by an unrealistic timetable if he really believes that the Bill will come back to the House and be on the statute book by March 2004. The timetable is unrealistic not just for March 2004, but for June 2004. I might be wrong, but if their lordships scrutinise it as they should and take their time, I would not be surprised if we need another six months, which might not be possible under the Standing Order. That would cause even more uncertainty in the business and planning communities.
	To my mind, one big lacuna needs to be addressed. I hope that the Government will consider how we deal with PPG3, social housing and section 106 agreements. As I understand it, the Government are consulting on section 106 agreements with the idea of introducing a new statutory instrument or Bill to deal with section 106-type compensations. Hon. Members will recall that before the original Bill was scrutinised by the Standing Committee it contained unworkable tariff proposals. The Government listened to the Committee and dropped those, but so far the planning community and the wider community have no idea what, if anything, is to replace section 106 agreements.
	I am sorry that I am beginning to get a little technical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know from when I practised planning law that it took longer to negotiate a section 106 agreement in a complex multifaceted development than it did to get planning permission. The Bill does nothing to deal with the section 106 issue. If the Government are not

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets more technical, perhaps I can remind him of the narrowness of the motion and the debate. He referred to six months. I was somewhat reassured by that and hope that we can concentrate on it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That ruling is very helpful.
	If we have an extra six months and do not produce an effective Bill because it fails to deal with section 106 agreements, we will not be doing the House, the planning community or the business community any favours. I simply flag it up as an issue for the Government. If they cannot deal with that in the Bill, I hope that they will address it expeditiously in another way.
	We are totally opposed to carrying over the Bill even for 12 months. However, we dealt with that when we voted on the earlier motion. We are certainly opposed to giving it an extra six months. The Bill is bad. It should be scrapped. We should start again and modify the existing planning system rather than introduce a wholesale new planning system. If the Government will not do that, let us ensure, whatever the political aspects of the motion, that when the Bill reaches the statute book it is better than it is at the moment. With the greatest possible grace that I can muster, I must tell the Minister that we will not achieve that if he offers us only eight sittings in Committee, and the reputation of the House will be tarnished. I appeal to him: if nothing else is achieved today, for goodness' sake please give us more than eight sittings and we will do our best to ensure that the Bill is a better Bill when it emerges from Committee. We will oppose the motion, but we will also try to use the time wisely if the Government give us extra sittings.

Matthew Green: The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to six months. I think he thought that that was going to be the length of his speech.
	It is important to consider what has gone on so far and some of the consequences of giving the Bill extra time. As we heard, the original Bill contained 90 clauses, 64 of which were not debated in Committee. We have heard that the rush to get the Bill out of Committee in January, with nothing happening afterwards, was due to other commitments. In an earlier debate today, the Leader of the House mentioned the war. I am slightly confused, as I did not realise that the Under-Secretary played any role in running the war in Iraqif he did, perhaps he should own up to it. Clearly, however, the Bill got stuck after January for no apparent reason. Several months down the line, the Government have suddenly come up with a series of excuses for needing more time.
	We should remember that the Bill has been introduced to speed up the planning process. The Government, however, are proposing to do so by taking another year. If that is how they try to speed things up, I would hate to see them try to slow something down. However, the extra time will have serious consequences in, for example, social housing. In a debate on 10 April, the Minister, replying to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), said:
	There is no target for new social housing in terms of our decent homes target, and there is no target in terms of the build for social housingthat is a matter for local plans, regional plans, and everything that will follow when Royal Assent is given to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.[Official Report, 10 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 112WH.]
	That means that there will be another 12 months before the Government have a strategy on social housing of any consequence. I am afraid that those areas suffering from a great lack of affordable housing will discover that the Government have done little to help them. The 12-month delay will certainly not help them at all.
	I am concerned that the extra 12 months will take us very close to the July 2004 deadline by which the UK must comply with the strategic environmental assessment directive, which covers all planning strategies. I realise that some Conservative Members are not going to get excited about that because it is, after all, a European directive. In Committee, however, the Minister was dismissive about that pointhe was sure that it would all be sorted out by then and there would not be any problems. However, we will get close to the deadline, and I would be grateful if he could give us an assurance that the changes that he will make to the Bill will comply with the directive.
	In a previous debate, the Leader of the House said that there was an opportunity for the Bill to be improved by scrutiny. I am a little confused because, even though the Under-Secretary recently described himself as generously naive, in Committee he did not accept a single amendment.

Tony McNulty: I accepted one.

Matthew Green: I believe that was a Government amendmentI stand corrected. We now know what a generous Minister doeshe accepts his own amendments.
	I am concerned that the Government will approach the extra eight sittings, which seems rather a short time, with exactly the same attitude and not accept any amendments. If we do make pertinent points, perhaps they will have another eight sittings so that they can introduce their own amendments to incorporate such changes. Either that, or we will need a long Report stage. It has already been pointed out that there were a couple of spelling mistakes in the original Bill, but the Minister is about to introduce a further 25 clauses. He has assured us that there are no spelling mistakes left in the Bill, but can we be sure that there will not be any such mistakes in those 25 clauses? I tabled an amendment to change the two spelling mistakes, which amounted to only one sentence.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but he is now wandering very wide of the motion.

Matthew Green: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The extra month will allow more time for the consideration of amendments. That is worrying, given the standard of some amendments, such as the one in which the Conservatives managed to put Wales and London next to one another.

Tom Levitt: As I recall, we threw that one out.

Matthew Green: Yes, and rightly so.
	Perhaps the longer period will permit greater reflection so that amendments can be drawn up more accurately in the first place. I hope that Members will be more succinct. In our previous debates, one Member mentioned Heathrow about 200 times, and it would not be desirable to repeat such behaviour. We welcome some aspects of the Bill, and the Government clearly need an opportunity to introduce change. On the face of it, the removal of Crown immunity is good, and it is also welcome that the Government are trying to sort out the mess of the stated development principles and outline planning permissions, especially as the Minister freely admitted

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I repeat once again that the merits of particular aspects of the Bill are not under discussion today?

Matthew Green: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The six-month extension allowed by the motion will permit the Government to make substantial changes. I thought that it might have been in order for me to touch on those changes, but clearly it is not. That is a shame, because others managed to do so. Unfortunately, the Government will not use those six months to include other matters in the Billbut I clearly cannot touch on them either.
	We shall oppose the motion for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in a previous debate. When the Standing Order was introduced to allow extra time and enable Bills to be carried over, it was intended not for the use that is being proposed today but for draft Bills that had been scrutinised in Committee. That has not happened with this Bill, despite what the hon. Member for Cotswold said about the amount of scrutiny. The Standing Order has not followed the route envisaged for it. The first time that the Government have had a chance to use it, they have corrupted what the House intended. That is a strong reason why Members should not support the motion, although I suspect that the Government will whip it through.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something that we will not have enough time to discuss when we debate the next motion, which will simply be moved by one Member and opposed by another? If the Government offer eight sittings in Committee, will the Liberals vote against that programme motion?

Matthew Green: Yes, we will. Some of those eight sessions, for reasons that I should have liked to explore but did not, will be far too short. I hope that we can have more time to discuss the Bill because at least half of it was not even touched on first time round, when there were 12 sittings. To be fair to the Minister, a few of the 64 clauses that were not touched on were brushed over rather than not discussed. There were some clauses that the Committee chose not to discuss but, even so, about half of the Bill was not discussed. At that time we had 12 sittings, so eight sittings will hardly be sufficient to debate another 24 new clauses, 45 new Government amendments and the remaining half of the Bill that we did not get through the first time. I can therefore confirm that we will vote against the programme motion when it arrives, and against the motion tonight.

John Gummer: I shall confine my remarks entirely to the time involved.
	I declare an interest as a former Secretary of State, and as someone who writes and advises on planning, particularly that which relates to environmental matters. In the past, it was always thought proper to give the House plenty of time to debate planning Bills, not because they were necessarily party politically controversial but because the issues are technical, and what happens on the ground, so to speak, is often very different from what Parliament may have thought in its theoretical discussions. I start with a concern about the timetable originally presented to us, and about the fact that so much of the Bill has not been discussed.
	There is a reason for that, and it is not a party political reason at all. There is no subject more important to individuals than how the technical details of planning permission affect them. If they go to their Member of Parliament and ask, Why on earth did you pass that clause? Did you not see that it might have this effect?, it is extremely galling for us to have to admit that we, or our colleagues who served on the Committee, never reached the clause.
	It is reasonable to suggest that as the Government propose to give themselves more time, they should do the House the courtesy of giving us enough time. Hon. Members in all parts of the House would agree that part of the quid pro quo for the Government using the new Standing Orders for the first time might be that they should ensure that we have enough time to discuss the issues, not because we want to trip the Government up or make party political points, but because the detailed examination of the issues by people who understand the subject from constituency or professional experience is helpful to the Government, and because it is not appropriate for the Government to rely on what may happen in another place.
	That brings me to my second point. The idea that the other place will be happy to fit in with the way in which the Government have decided to arrange matters seems not entirely likely. The other place is not always as easily cajoled or corralled as the Minister suggests. It may be worth considering rather more carefully the interrelationship between the two Houses of Parliament in the circumstances with which we are faced.
	That leads me to the third point. This is the first use of the provision, and I have a constitutional worry about the way in which it is being used. It is not for me to suggest the motives behind the pause. We had considerable discussion about the difficulty that the Minister had in combining his role in fighting the war in Iraq and in the planning Bill. We realise that. It is one of the mysterious elements that we have not yet entirely unwound, but we understand that there were all sorts of reasons why the Bill was not brought to fruition. However, I fear that none of them is the reason that the Government advanced for the change in the law.
	When the Government advanced the not unreasonable proposition that there were sometimes circumstances in which the due process through the House meant that, in order to give enough time for discussion of a draft Bill, it might take longer than is circumscribed by our parliamentary Sessions, they suggested that it was only on rare occasions that the nature of a Bill and its proper discussion made the longer time scale sensible.
	That is not the proposition before us today. We have had a most interesting dance, very fast for a very short time, and then the music stopped. We listened in vain: there was no sound at all. Just when we think that it might begin again, we are told that it will not begin until after this Session. Why? It is because the band is engaged elsewhere. That is the pointit is not because of anything to do with the motion, but because the Government want the time to do other things.
	I realise that the Minister has been brilliant. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude, because he has fought a good battle with those who organise these matters, by saying, If you are going to put me in the embarrassing position of having to explain to the House why we have to do this, I want some recompense. I want to put back into the Bill some provisions that you got me to take out of the Bill previously because you wanted it through quickly.
	The timetabling of the Bill was already arranged by the Government to remove from it the bits that they thought would make it a long Bill. That was what the Minister was fighting for originally. Let us not think that the Government have suddenly invented the need to deal with Crown immunity or to extend the detailed arrangements for compulsory purchase. They tried to put those in the original Bill, but they were told that they could not do so by the powers that benow a power that was, he having resigned over the war. That might be part of the war issue. Perhaps the former Leader of the House was the key figure in all this. The Government therefore dropped those clauses, because the Bill had to complete its passage quickly. There were to be a small number of meetings of the Committee, a short referral to the House of Lords, and then back to this place and the Bill would be through. That is what the Government were told.
	That is not quite what happened, owing to some large lacunaeholes, we might sayin the middle. The Bill was held up while the Government thought about what to do. It was held up to such an extent that the powers that be told them that it would have to be held up further. Very cleverly, the Minister and his colleagues argued that if they were to be embarrassed in that waythe Minister is obviously embarrassed, as he is a decent manthey had to be able to say that the Government would put back into the Bill the provisions that they had taken out when matters were to be arranged differently. That is where we are now. Those aspects that I may not discuss, but which certainly contribute to the length of the Bill, will be put back in.
	When those things are put back in, what will it mean in terms of time? I must refer to one substantive issue in order to speak about timeCrown immunity. I was the Secretary of State who started to try to get rid of Crown immunity, as it always seemed to me an outrage and scandal that a certain kind of operation was immune for no good reason. I discovered that the difficultyin terms of time, this matter needs detailed discussionwas simply that, amidst all the things that do not need immunity, there are some that need some immunity. Therefore, trying to write that into a Bill is much more difficult and complex than anybody thought when starting out.
	We know why that is the case. We already have a planning system that is, in a sense, pretty peculiar. When the IRA kindly put me on its list for the second time and a certain amount of protection was necessary, planning policy said that we had to advertise in the newspaper and supply pictures of the protection that was given. That did not seem a frightfully good idea, and my local authority kindly said that the pictures could be as blurred as I liked. That was very kind, but it does not feature in the Bill. The fact is that the provisions will be very complex and detailed, and some anecdotal information of that sort will be valuable in our discussions. It is not something to be missed.
	I say to the Minister that the Crown immunity elementI am very pleased that he is going to introduce it and I am sure that it is necessaryhas been a long time coming. That is not a criticism of him; it has taken a long time because it is very complicated. The time involved in discussing it in the House of Commons will therefore be very considerable, so I ask him to think again about the amount of time that he will provide for those discussions, simply because if he does not give proper time, I am afraid that we will get the Bill wrong.
	There is no doubt that there is a growing feeling outside the House that the revising and detailed role of the House of Commons is being eroded. Many years ago, I argued with Enoch PowellI was on the wrong side of the argumentabout the effect of Select Committees. He argued that once we gave Members of Parliament other things to do that they thought were parliamentarily useful, we would cease to do here what we were here to do. I did not think that that would be so, but I was wrong. Although Enoch Powell was usually wrong, at least on that occasion he was right. He was right on that issue because he understood so well the nature of this House. Part of the nature of this House is the dull and boring business of trying to make our legislation as good as it can be, given that none of us can be expert in everything, and those who are experts in something are usually selected to serve on a Committee dealing with a subject about which they know nothing at all.
	That is the nature of the House, but we get quite good at looking at the phrases that are used and seeing whether all the possibilities have been thought through. Governments sometimes become impatient with that process, but all the lessons have shown that impatience at that moment leads to a great deal of frustration afterwards and that it is better to be frustrated while the Bill is passing through the House, when there is time to discuss it properly, than to use the ability of a Government with a large majority to force matters and then find that the very clauses that have not been discussed give them problems thereafter.
	It is that which concerns me about what is proposed today. I believe that this Government are giving themselves problems. Of course, I should say, For goodness' sake, shove the Bill through and get all the trouble; we'll point it out and tell people who did it. However, in the end, planning is about people's futures. It is not all about great developers or huge housing estates; it is very often about individuals doing with their own land what they want to do, and the community saying that there must be a restriction. People therefore need the opportunity to feel that this House, in representing the community, individuals and the interests of our constituents, has looked at such matters in detail.
	The Government are not giving us that opportunity. I am therefore not prepared to support them on this occasion, and I will wish to vote against them because they are not doing themselves justice. If ever an Opposition have a job, it is to remind the Government when they are failing themselves.

John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
	I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who made very powerful speeches against the six-month extension. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, the Opposition would be much happier with an entirely different sort of Bill producing a much better planning system than the one envisaged. Anyone who takes that view must vote against the extension of time, to kill the Bill, but my case is to the Minister. I think that he has been placed in an extremely difficult position by chopping and changing well above his rank in government and by indecision and lethargy alternating with brief bursts of speed and enthusiasm for the Bill. It is extraordinary that a measure that was thought so crucial in January as to be rushed through with improper consideration has been languishing ever since, and is still languishing and must await the next Session.
	I therefore say to the Minister that he, too, should be against the motion and that at this eleventh hour he should cancel the idea of a six-month extension. He will have a miserable time trying to cobble together all the new clauses and amendments. He told us that he already thinks that he will need 69 new clauses and amendments to a 90-clause Bill. My guess is that we will end up with more than 90 Government amendments and new clauses before the process is finished, and that the Committee will be asked to consider, in a very short space of time within the six months, effectively a new Bill. Would it not be better if the Government admitted that today, went away and constructed a proper Bill based on the Government's common policy objectivesif it is possible to find anythen presented a new Bill in the normal way without the need for this strange procedure of a six-month extension? My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal powerfully made the case that the original Bill received insufficient scrutiny in Committee and that it is beyond belief that that could be made good in the eight short sittings that will be allocated within the six-month period, given that what is required is the proper scrutiny of a large number of very technical measures.
	I make no secret of the fact that my constituents and I do not welcome the Bill because it means building over the south-east to an even greater extent than is already the case. That requires proper scrutiny and proper debate in this Chamber on a substantive motionan honest motion, following the Chancellor's statement yesterdayfollowed by detailed and lengthy scrutiny in Committee to see whether the Government are changing the planning system and whether we can stop them doing so in an undemocratic direction. That is why I asked the Minister about the Chancellor's involvement. Had the Chancellor concentrated properly on the issue, he might have wanted to oppose the six-month extension. We heard only yesterday that he was impatient to revolutionise the planning system to meet his eight-month deadline for a reconsideration of the housing market prior to next year's Budget. Surely, given that the Bill is the concreting over the south-east measure that the Chancellor has in mind to try to get nearer to the euro, he must be arguing to the Minister that six months is too long to wait and that the Government should produce the amendments and new clauses now and drive them through. On those counts, there is a strange community of interest. Those of us who want to kill the Bill do not want the six-month extension, the Chancellor should want to end it to try to speed the whole process up, and the Minister would be well out of it because his patience has been sorely tested for a long time by all the chopping and changing and extreme changes of pace from high speed to dead stop.
	It is, I believe, common practice in competitive soccer competitions that if no one has scored in normal time, extra time is played. I guess that that is in the Minister's mind. He thinks that if extra time is played, he will be able to score. Having listened to him this afternoon, however, it is clear that there is absolutely no chance of his being able to score for his political cause. The existing contents of the Bill are dynamite, and although his suggested new contents may have some good bitsfor example, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, on Crown immunitythey will not change or improve the workings of the dreadful planning system inherent in the current draft of the Bill, which will lead to the concreting over of much-loved parts of the countryside. The Minister should not ask for extra time for this measure, because there is no chance of his scoring with it.
	My final points relate to the general problem of democratic accountability in the House of Commons. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and many other right hon. and hon. Friends, I think that this place matters a great deal. There should be detailed scrutiny from all angles and perspectives, not on a party political basis, but on a practical working basis as hon. Members bring their skills and experiences to bear on legislation. I fear that six months and eight sittings represent far too short a time and far too puny a contribution to proper scrutiny and debate. Consequently, the measure will make bad legislation, and large elements of it will never have been debated properly in the Chamber or taken apart and put together again in Committee.
	On such a crucial issue, which touches the heart of the lifestyles of all our constituents, we deserve much better. The Government say that they now believe in democracy and that they value our parliamentary system. They should show that by withdrawing the motion, apologising to the House, admitting that six months is not enough to improve the Bill, reconsidering, starting again and introducing a proper Bill when they have a sensible policy.

Eric Forth: It is becoming obvious that the Under-Secretary and his colleagues are serial offenders. We are considering today's motions because they imposed a ludicrously tight timetable on the original Committee stage, thereby ensuring that the Bill could not be properly scrutinised. They allowed the measure to lapse and be delayed for several months, thus placing unnecessary and artificial time pressure on themselves and, subsequently, on the House and the parliamentary process.
	The Under-Secretary made it clear that the timetable under the motion means that he will produce amendments in the period up to July and for the extraordinary sitting in September, and that he will then generously allow the Committee eight sittings in October to reconsider the entire Bill and the new clauses and amendments. He said that he did not envisage Report and Third Reading taking place until the new Session. He does not know when the new Session will begin; I venture to suggest that even you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not know that. However, we can guess that it will not start until well into November. If one takes into account the normal time for debating the Queen's Speech and so on, it is doubtful whether the Government will manage to conclude Report and Third Reading before Christmas, despite the extension of time that they are asking us to approve. It is therefore doubtful whether the measure will be sent to another place even in early January.
	The Under-Secretary, having restricted the amount of time in Committee originally, and intending to do that again, has the gall and impudence to suggest that their Lordships will complete their considerations by March. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out, we all expect that the other place will want to examine the Bill with special care because we have been able to give it such scant attention. It is unacceptable and insulting for the Under-Secretary to expect their lordships to whiffle the Bill through to meet his artificial deadline.
	What will happen if we have some ping-pong, to use our highly technical term for describing the shuttling of a Bill backwards and forwards between the two great Houses of Parliament? Has the Under-Secretary considered that? He appears to expect the whole thing to be wrapped up neatly in the six-month extension that he asks us to approve. Moreover, he has the gall to say that if that is not enough time, we shall have another extension.
	In other words, the Under-Secretary claims that any constraint on the Government that may have existed in the past is now long gone. Governments are no longer subject to discipline and constraint, and such motions allow them to restrict Committee stage, dally, delay and mess things up because they can subsequently say, We'll change the rules, adjust and demand more time. It would appear that one of the few checks on the Government when they introduce excessive or paltry legislation has sadly disappeared. Today's apparently innocuous and simple motion demonstrates that the Government acknowledge no discipline for themselves in the legislative process. That is not only sad but dangerous. Every time we are asked to approve such a motion, we take a further step along a dangerous path and inch further down a slippery slope. That is why I hope that we will resist this motion now, and that, one of these days, we will be able to bring the Government back to some sort of accountability to the House and the parliamentary process. If we do not, I hope that their Lordships will.

Tony McNulty: First, may I say that, if there was any gall or impudenceimplied or otherwisein what I said, it was unintended? If I thought that I or the Government could control those at the other end of this building, I would have said March and had done with it. March is my aspiration; June is the more realistic expectation. That is precisely why the measure refers to six months rather than three. I was not presuming there to be any control on my part or on that of the Government, or any control or direction of their lordships up the other endfar from it.
	Some hon. Members went away from the core elements of the motion on the extension of the period for proceedings and introduced other elements, bemoaning their absence from the Bill. It is important to note that many of those elements were never intended to be in the Bill. In the very first speech that I made on Second Reading, which seems a long time ago, I said that we had a clear planning reform agenda and that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was but part of that agenda. So, although the important points that hon. Members made on circular 6/98 on affordable housing, for example, and on section 106 and the whole vexed area of planning obligations, were all germane, those issues were never intended to be part of the Bill. Bemoaning their absence, with or without a further extension of time, therefore seems rather strange.
	I know that the Opposition must have their fun, but I do not believe that this measure has left the reputation of the House tarnished or sullied in any way. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that uncertainty is a bad thing, which is why I am pleased to reiterate that I am more than happy to work with those on his Front Bench and the other Front Benches to ensure that many of the amendments that we need to introduce are tabled before the summer recesscertainly those on the technical elements and the concessions, for want of a better word, relating to material already discussed. If I can, I shall push that further into other areas, because I accept what has been said.
	I bow to the experience of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) of the intricacies of Crown immunity. I would only hope that time, thought and the civil service have moved on, in terms of those complexities, in the 10 or so years since his time at the then Department of the Environmentthe death of whose building I glory in, I must say. Marsham street now has a lovely big hole in it, which looks quite pleasant. What the Home Office will do with it is none of my business.
	It is a little churlish to suggest that if we extend for six months, eight further sittings will not be enough. The Opposition do not yet know what their own load will be in terms of amendments and new clauses to the Bill, let alone the form, rather than just the number, of amendments that the Government will want to introduce. I would prefer people to wait and see what follows, and to make the necessary arrangements through the usual channels.
	I have promised faithfully to be as generous as I possibly canI thought that I was in that mood and character in Committee, but clearly I was notboth prior to the recommittal and subsequently in Standing Committee, should the Bill secure this motion to carry on, but some very strange arguments have been put forward. It was hard to follow the logic of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who spent some time bemoaning the lack of scrutiny up to this point in the Bill's progress, yet, when offered this motion to secure further scrutiny, seemed to suggest that it was an absolute parliamentary disgrace. He also said that he would vote against the motion proposing eight sittings. His logic was tortured, as was his speech, and I was delighted when Madam Deputy Speaker brought him to book. Despite his churlishness, however, I remain committed to bringing forward as much as possible in the interest of making legislation as good as it can bea point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastalbecause I agree, on a non-partisan basis, that that is our task.
	I must upbraid the right hon. Gentleman just a little. As I have said before, I did not suggest that the House of Lords should be cajoled or corralled into doing anything; I merely referred to a timetable to which I aspired. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, I was not fighting in any war in Iraq. I did not consider that a very useful analogy, although I should add that it was first introduced by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The progress of the Bill depends not on my time but on the Government's time, and the use of that time by this Parliament. It was unnecessary, and not very respectful, to make comments about fighting in Iraq.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While the Government are allowing themselves an extra six months, they are only prepared to give the House an extra eight sessions in Standing Committee, which amounts to two weeks. Surely they could be more generous and allow more effective scrutiny.

Tony McNulty: This may sound churlish, but what the hon. Gentleman says rather implies that extra time means extra-detailed scrutiny. That does not necessarily follow.
	As I have said before, although I am an ex-member of the brotherhoodLiberal Democrats assure me that I am an honorary life member, but I should have to check thatI am no longer part of the usual channels. This is a matter for the usual channels and not one for me. Nevertheless, I accept what has been said about uncertainty. I was a member of a planning committee for 11 years, largely under the yoke of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, and I know that planning is important at an individual level, before we start to deal with grandiose schemes, huge developments and major infrastructure projects. It must be afforded due scrutiny, and we must get everything right now that we have enough time to do so. However many sittings take place between now and the summer recessand subsequently, if this motion and the next are passedI will do all that I can to ensure that Opposition Members have sight of all the amendments as early as possible, and can speak about them in some detail if the Bill is indeed recommitted.
	I will resist the exhortation of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to vote against my own motion. I did not have to think about it for long. I suspect that the Chancellor will resist that exhortation as well. With or without the motion we are discussing, this is not about putting concrete over the south-east. The right hon. Gentleman condemned the existing planning system for doing thata terrible rebuke to his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who is largely responsible for most of the beneficial change in the planning framework over the past 20 years or so.
	The Government have always believed in democracy; they are not recent converts, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham implied. We have said that this is not our ideal solution, but let me echo the words of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. Now that we have the opportunity afforded to us by the three motions, it is incumbent on all of usbecause of the importance of planning, and to end the uncertainty mentioned by the hon. Member for Ludlowto make the legislation as good as it can be. On a cross-party, consensual basisI apologise to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for thatwe can secure much better legislation and a far superior planning framework if this motion and the next are passed.

Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 181.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That if the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is carried over to the next Session of Parliament, the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (10) of the Order of the House of 29th October 2002 shall be extended by the period of six months.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (ReCommittal)

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill be re-committed to a Standing Committee.
	I thank the House for the enthusiasm with which it supported the carry-over motion and the extension of the period for proceedings motion. The logical consequence of passing them is that the Bill now be re-committed to a Standing Committee. We can debate the point, but the relevant Standing Committee could be either the existing one or a new one: it does not matter too much, because in either case, it can be adjusted appropriately by the Committee of Selection. The Bill will be recommitted to a Standing Committee firmly in the context that I have outlined. First, I will endeavour to ensure that by Septemberlong before the Bill is recommitted to the Standing Committee, should that be the wish of the Houseall the statutory instruments, circulars and other germane elements are published. As hon. Members will recall, in the initial stages of the Bill, the regulations were published, but we have lost track of that simultaneous unfolding of the appropriate regulations and statutory instruments. I will endeavour to ensure that they are all in place before recommittal.
	Secondly, I will seek to ensure that as many as possible of the Government's new amendmentsincluding all those that would make technical changes to the existing Bill and the concessions that the Government agreed to makewill be tabled and published before the House rises in the summer. Thirdly, I will also endeavour to publish the amendments on other issuescompulsory purchase, Crown immunity and urban development corporationsat the earliest opportunity. If I can, I will do so before the House rises, but if not, by September at the latest, to facilitate hon. Members who wish to prepare for their role in Committee.
	I hope that the House will accept unanimously the recommittal to a Standing Committee. Whether one was for or against the two previous motions, it must follow that the Bill should be recommitted to a Standing Committee for further scrutiny. It will be a matter for debate between the usual channels whether that is for four sittings, as I would prefer, or eight or even 12. However, no one who has listened to the fair debates that we have had on the two previous motions could do anything but fully support the recommittal of the Bill to Standing Committee so it can be afforded further scrutiny. I commend the motion to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I contend to the Minister that as I have cajoled and pleaded with him in the debate on the previous two motions, the Bill should be recommitted to Standing Committee without any guillotinelet alone the measly and inadequate eight sittings that the Minister is prepared to offer usI should, and will, urge my colleagues to oppose the motion. [Interruption.] The Minister told me off the record that there would be eight sittings. I pleaded with him to give us more sittings, but I have had no indication from him that he will grant that request. Therefore, I have no alternative but to urge my colleagues to vote against the motion.
	The Minister has already told us that 70 major new clauses and amendments will be tabled, to a Bill that was originally 90 clauses long. In other words, the amendments and new clauses will probably double the size of the Bill. The original 12 sittings were not enough, so we cannot possibly give the Bill proper scrutiny in only eight sittings.
	Standing Orders say that the Bill should be recommitted
	in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the bill in the first Session, to a standing committee of the same Members as the members of the standing committee on the bill in the first Session.
	I have taken advice from the Clerks and they say that that should be so, all other things being equal. By golly, I hope that we do not have the same Standing Committee. I do not wish to do anybody an injustice, but from a quick scrutiny of the Hansard of the Committee proceedings, it appears that four Labour Membersthe hon. Members for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt)and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), a Welsh nationalist, said nothing or almost nothing. I hope that all members of the Standing Committee will make a full and proper contribution.

Peter Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend consider that, if what we read about a cull of junior Ministers in an imminent reshuffle is true, it is possible that half of the junior Ministers who were on the Committee will not be there if the Committee is reformed?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes his own point. However, I am sure that there will be plenty of applicants.

Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I shall give way to the Minister, but I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so I shall not give way to anyone else.

Tony McNulty: I want to make two quick points. First, Parliamentary Private Secretaries traditionally do not speak in Committee, and at least two of the hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman referred held that office. Secondly, it is very unkind of the hon. Gentleman to besmirch the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for not saying anything. The hon. Gentleman was not there, so how could he say anything?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise to the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt). He was indeed the PPS.

Ian Stewart: What about the rest of them?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The rest of them had every opportunity to speak.

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) was also a PPS on the Committee.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am now informed that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) was a PPS on the Committee, but there was no excuse for the rest of the Committee members not taking a proper part in the proceedings.
	Why should the Committee not be guillotined? That is the real issue for consideration this evening. We are dealing with unprecedented parliamentary procedure. The motions passed earlier allow the Government to carry the Bill over into the next Session. That is unprecedented. Surely, if the Government are going to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee, that Committee should not be guillotined and should have every opportunity to carry out line-by-line scrutiny. There will be a huge number of new clauses and amendments70-oddand no doubt there will be goodness knows how many new schedules as well. However, the existing Bill is highly flawed and needs extensive scrutiny. It is a bad Bill, and it needs lots of amendment, so that the people of this country get the planning system that they want.

Matthew Green: I just want to confirm that Liberal Democrat Members will join the Conservatives in the Lobby to oppose the proposal, as we believe that eight sittings will be insufficient to scrutinise the changes to the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Of course we need to scrutinise the Bill properly, and the hon. Gentleman is right. My prime concern is that the House is beginning to get a reputation for passing unsatisfactory legislation because insufficient time for scrutiny is being allowed in Committee or on Report. I do not seem to be anywhere near getting a commitment from the Minister that there will be no guillotine on the Committee, and so the Opposition have no alternative but to oppose the motion.
	I want to raise another point. What happens if the Government recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee and then have other ideas for additional things that they want to include? What is to prevent them from coming to the House and asking for a further recommittal motion? This is a very bad way to go about Government business. This Bill received a huge amount of public consultation. Three huge documents were produced, starting as long ago as December 2001, and there have been 16,500 responses. There was also pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee, yet the Government still managed to publish a bad Bill before it went into Committee. The guillotine meant that Committee scrutiny was inadequate, as was the Bill that emerged.
	There used to be certainty in the planning system before this Bill, for example in connection with obtaining outline planning permission. Now, there is confusion about the new concept of the statement of development principles. Many developers have said that they expect difficulty in getting funding for large developments if that sort of nonsense remains in the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Nothing would give me greater pleasure, but I have only 10 minutes to debate this motion. If my hon. Friend will allow, I shall make progress.

Nicholas Winterton: With difficulty.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Through the previous motion, the Government have given themselves six extra months on the Bill, but they are proposing to allow only eight extra Committee sittings. That means that two weeks will be spent in Standing Committee, out of six months. That is an extraordinary state of affairs, especially with a highly technical Bill such as this, about which there has been a huge amount of representation and interest from outside bodies. There is now uncertainty about the planning system, and the Government's wholesale amendment of the Bill is like starting from scratch. The measure needs a lot of scrutiny and if it does not receive the scrutiny properly due to it in Committee, an enormous amount of case law will ensue. I predict that that will happen anyway; it will be a lawyers' paradise, as many experts have already told us.
	This is a poor way to run Government business. Surely, the Government should set out their programme in the Queen's Speech in the normal way and then decide which Bills are more important so that they can be dealt with properly in the parliamentary Session. Only in exceptional circumstances should a Bill be carried over in this way. Such a procedure should certainly not apply to a Bill as technical as this one, which has received such a large amount of pre-legislative scrutiny. Such a Bill should not be a candidate for carry-over. The only candidates for carry-over should be Bills to which the House, for one reason or another, has not had time to give proper scrutiny. That is not the case for this Bill; the Government simply want to introduce a raft of extra proposals.
	When we debated the previous motions, the technical nature of the additional material proposed was made clearfor example, on Crown immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) probably has more experience of such matters than any other Member. He has already given us a clue about the difficulty of abolishing Crown immunity for Departments. What will happen in national emergencies? What about the Ministry of Defence? We shall have to deal with all those matters in considerable detail.
	We shall also have to deal in considerable detail with the technical merits of compulsory purchase. It will be extremely difficult to deal with 70 new clauses or amendments in the time available, so, in the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion. It is a bad principle and a bad precedent.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 74 (Re-committal of bill):
	The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 168.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill be re-committed to a Standing Committee.

Sustainable Energy Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified

Brian Wilson: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sustainable Energy Bill, it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State under the Act; and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided; and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.
	The motion concerns the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), who is in the Chamber. On Second Reading, the Government said that they were content to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee, which was agreed by the House. They also said that several amendments would have to be made if the Bill was to receive their support.
	Clause 1 would require the publication of an annual report on sustainable energy policy. As the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with responsibility for small firms, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), said on Second Reading in my absence, the Government accept the need to report progress made toward the goals set out in our energy White Paper. However, we would prefer a less prescriptive approach on the content of the report and have tabled a suitable new clause for consideration in Committee tomorrow. However, the resolution is appropriate to the clause.
	Clause 2 would require the appropriate authority to take steps to improve domestic energy efficiency and would provide a power to set improvement targets for local authorities. It would also impose a duty on energy conservation authorities to implement measures set out in their existing reports under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. We cannot support the imposition of new burdens on local authorities without prior assessment and thus intend to table amendments to reflect that on Report.
	The cost of setting any targets for local authorities under the clause or of imposing any duties on them as a result of the proposed duty on the Government and the Executive of the National Assembly for Wales cannot be assessed at this stage. However, the cost of meeting such targets and of undertaking any duties imposed on local authorities would need to be met by Government with funds provided by Parliament, and under section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 in the case of Wales. The resolution covers both possibilities.
	Clause 3 includes measures to support combined heat and powerCHP. We set out several measures in the White Paper to encourage the development of CHP but we cannot support the specific proposals in the Bill. The cost of the measures would be met by the support for renewable energy that is already provided through the renewables obligation. It would rise to around 1 billion a year in 2010 and definitely threaten our renewables objectives. We shall move an amendment on Report to provide for a duty to set CHP targets for the central government estate.
	Clause 4 would require the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the electricity and gas market regulator, to publish environmental impact assessments under the Utilities Act 2000. The Government wish to replace the clause with a requirement for Ofgem to produce regulatory impact assessments, which would include environmental impact assessments. Ofgem's expenditure under the Utilities Act 2000 is paid out of money provided by Parliament and the resolution accordingly provides for such expenditure.
	Clause 5 would require Ofgem to make such payments as the Secretary of State directed to beneficiaries of schemes to promote sustainable energy. The Government have tabled a new clause that would allow the Secretary of State to direct Ofgem to pay 60 million into the Consolidated Fund and thus enable the Secretary of State to use those moneys to promote renewable energy, as set out in the energy White Paper. That would ensure that expenditure was properly accounted for to the House. The resolution provides for both the expenditure and the matching payments into the Consolidated Fund.
	Finally, clause 6 would require energy conservation authorities to perform their functions in a way that promotes the fuel poverty objectives specified in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 through an amendment to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. After consulting the Local Government Association, it is our view that that would impose additional burdens on local authorities that should first be properly assessed. The Government intend to table an amendment on Report to reflect that, which would link the provision to clause 2. As with clause 2, any additional costs would need to be met by the Government from funds provided by Parliament. The resolution also provides for that.
	We look forward to discussing the Bill further in Committee tomorrow and I commend the motion to the House.

Andrew Robathan: We support the Bill in general and look forward to discussing it in Committee tomorrow. We hope that it will come out of Committee in better shape than when it went in.
	I was interested in much that the Minister had to say about the money resolution. He did not mention the non-fossil fuel obligation. I understand that money left over from that may be used to support the Bill. If that is the case, perhaps he could say how much money is left over from the NFFO scheme, which is being wound up to be replaced by the renewables obligation.
	I disagree slightly, in that I want more detail in the annual report that the Government will be required to put to Parliament. In particular, I want the Government to judge their performance against the ambitious targets that they have set. They not only set a target of 10 per cent. of energy capacity to come from renewables by 2010, but set a target of 20 per cent. by 2020. The current estimate of the Renewable Power Association is that those will be undershot, to be 7 per cent. by 2010 and 12 per cent. by 2020. We will have to discuss that in Committee tomorrow.
	The Minister mentioned CHP, which I think is dealt with in clause 4. Although the Government might not want to be prescriptive on CHP in the money resolution or the Bill, the target for 2000, which they inherited, was 5 GW of capacity produced by CHP, which was not reached. The target for 2010, which they set, is 10 GW. There is no likelihood of that happening yet.
	We look forward to tomorrow's Committee and support the resolution. I hope that the Minister will explain whether the ambitious targets set by the Government will or will not be fulfilled. In particular, I want to know about the NFFO money.

Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and we congratulate him on the success that it has achieved so far. As a consequence of that, we will support the money resolution so that we provide the Bill with the means to be effective. It could be the first important building block in an effective energy conservation strategy for this country. We look forward to the work in Committee and on Report.
	I note that the explanatory notes issued with the Bill claim that very little public money will be needed beyond that which is already allocated by other legislation and existing budgets. That draws attention to the fact that the Bill is comparatively modest in its purpose and is not revolutionary. I listened with some concern to what the Minister said about the changes that he intends to make. I hope that he will confirm, if not today, then at the start of the Committee tomorrow, that the Government remain committed to implementing a strategy of sustainable energy and energy conservation. I hope that he does not simply see the Government's actions as steps to block and fillet a modest and necessary piece of legislation.
	In summary, we support the Bill and money resolution. We shall be vigilant in preventing them from being blocked, diverted or diluted by the Government.
	Question put and agreed to.

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Schedule 1
	  
	Amendment of the 1980 Act: Levying, Revision and Application of Tolls

Ben Chapman: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'November 1999' and insert 'November 2003'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 28, in page 3, line 15, leave out '1999' and insert '2003'.
	No. 22, in page 5, line 31, after 'every', insert 'fifth'.
	No. 23, in page 5, line 38, leave out '12 months and insert: 'five years'.
	No. 35, in page 5, line 47, leave out from the first 'percentage' until the end of line 3 on page 6 and insert
	'as the Retail Price Index for the base month minus X where X is a percentage to be decided by the Secretary of State on the making of every third order to ensure the efficient and cost-effective management of the tunnels after sufficient provision has been made for the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3) above, and for which purpose the Authority shall submit to the Secretary of State accounts for the tunnels for the three years preceding the making of the order and outline its objectives in accordance with paragraph (e) of subsection (3) above.'.
	No. 24, in page 6, line 2, leave out 'retail prices index for the month of November' and insert
	'mean average of the retail price indices for the months of November in the five years.'.
	No. 25, in page 6, line 36, at end insert
	'(c) all or any of the tolls fixed by or by virtue of this Act should be increased prior to 5 years having elapsed since the making of the previous order.'.
	No. 18, in page 8, line 13, at end insert
	'(1A) The Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority may freeze toll prices when the provisions of subsection 91(3)(e) have been met and the revenue needs of (a), (b), (c) and (d) can be met without an increase in the toll. If appropriate, tolls shall temporarily cease to be demanded where the revenue needs of (a), (b), (c) and (d) can be met without revenue from such tolls.'.

Ben Chapman: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from earlier debates on the Bill, that I am not its greatest fan. In its current form, it would remove from the people of Merseyside the decades-old promise that the tunnel debt would be paid off and tolls reduced over a period of time. It would allow the Merseyside passenger transport authority to increase tunnel tolls by the rate of inflation whether or not it had demonstrated the need to do so or introduced efficiencies. It would allow the MPTA to use tunnel profits to support other transport projects from tunnel receipts. The one aspect of the Bill to which I have no objection whatsoever provides for the soundproofing of certain dwellings around the Kingsway tunnel, which I very much support.

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there must be a much clearer definition of which houses will be included in any sound insulation improvements in the Bill and which would be excluded?

Ben Chapman: The hon. Gentleman has a detailed knowledge of the Bill's provisions, and I defer to him on that point.

Frank Field: That is something that we will wish to debate. However, there is a black cloud hanging over our proceedings. When we were going through the Lobby to vote on an earlier motion today, the Whips told Labour Members that everyone could go home except the payroll vote, which suggests that although we are going to have a debate and give the Bill serious consideration, other Members may need to be brought in later. I just hope that the payroll vote is watching my hon. Friend on television and can experience his eloquence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not have anything to do with the amendments before the House.

Ben Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Some of the amendments bring us up to date and recognise that the Bill has been around for a long time. One of them requires the tolls to be increased every five years, rather than every year, as the Bill proposes. Another one includes a proposal to increase efficiency. They result from the fact that, in my view at least, Merseytravel is a substantially unaccountable body with a propensity to spend money.

Frank Field: I obviously do not want to guess what my hon. Friend will say when he introduces his amendments. My objections have a much narrower focus than his, but I am intrigued by his arguments about efficiency. Will he deal with that more effectively and at greater length in his introductory remarks?

Ben Chapman: I intend to do so briefly but in some detail, as my proposed formula is quite complex.

John Pugh: A few seconds ago, the hon. Gentleman said that Merseytravel was a substantially unaccountable body. Is he not aware that it is the only body left over from Merseyside county council that is full of elected members?

Ben Chapman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall deal with that in detail later.

Frank Field: For the record, I thought that Liverpool city council, Wirral council and every other council was directly elected. We are talking about a body with indirectly elected representatives, but there is a galaxy of elected bodies in Merseyside.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that this is about the question of tolls and inflationary increases? We would make better progress and better use of the time available if we remained strictly within the terms of the amendments.

Ben Chapman: I hope to demonstrate that there is no need to raise tolls every yearhence one of the amendmentsif, indeed, at all.

Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the title of this group of amendments suggests, we are discussing what Mr. Deputy Speaker just referred toinflationary increases, which will not be good for Merseyside?

Ben Chapman: That is parliamentary shorthand. We are covering wider matters than that.
	The formula that has been mentioned, retail prices index minus X, would bring increased efficiency to the operation of Merseytravel. The existing legislation requires the Merseyside passenger transport authority and the Secretary of State to take into account the effect of revising any tolls. The provisions enable and require the authority and the Secretary of State to take into account any revision on the basis of financial, transport or social considerations.
	Those considerations are wide and would include the impact of the revision on travel patterns and on local businesses, for example. They are of considerable significance, as an increase in tolls is likely to deter users from using the tunnel concerned and cause them to use other routes. Increased tolls are likely to increase the operating costs of, and may affect the viability of, local businesses. They will certainly deter investment in Merseyside. Although the effect of the diversion to other routes such as the Runcorn bridge is of necessity limited, as it would entail a 50-mile round journey, such diversion as does occur is likely to exacerbate existing congestion and safety problems.
	As I read the Bill, once the provision is removed, Merseytravel would effectively be accountable to no one. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1985 specifies that the MPTA should comprise two members from Knowsley district council, six from Liverpool, two from St. Helen's, four from Sefton and four from The Wirral. That is it. There is no mention of expertise, experience or suitability, no requirement for a mix of management, finance and accounting skills, and no direct representation for trade unions or users. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the competence of Merseyside councillors; far from it. I am sure that they are hard-working and thoroughly capable. Certainly, those whom I know are. I am not criticising specific people, merely the failings of the system that leads to their appointment to the MPTA.
	In effect, posts are allocated as between the police authority, the passenger transport authority and other authorities. As I said on Second Reading, people are given posts on the principle of Buggins' turn. That was taken by some as being offensive, but what I mean is that allocation is on a random basis, rather than on the basis of skills. One might argue that the councillors can rely on those skills from the executive, but if that were the case, it would effectively be the executive that ran Merseytravel. If there is no counterbalance on the authority, it surely follows that the organisation is run by an executive that has even less accountability or democratic mandate.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fail to see the relevance of my hon. Friend's remarks to the amendments. I should appreciate your advice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully. As I have had to intervene from the Chair on a couple of occasions already, I am trying to give a little leeway to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), but I am listening to what he is saying, and if I am not satisfied very shortly that what he is saying is relevant to the terms of his amendments, I shall intervene to say so.

Ben Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to stick by your guidance. I am attempting to demonstrate, among other things, that there is no need for the rises, certainly not on an annual basis, and that there is no accountability. We need to build in efficiency mechanisms and a five-year period, because there is no direct accountability.

Stephen Hesford: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rises are not necessary even in terms of internal consistency on the part of Merseytravel, as the tunnels already break even and cover their own costs?

Ben Chapman: As I shall seek to demonstrate later, the tunnels not only break even, but make a fair margin of profit. That is another argument for restricting ourselves to a five-year review and to RPI minus X, and for greater accountability on the part of the authority. The general public have a right to demand that large sums such as those going into the authoritythere is a budget of 80 million a yearare properly accounted for. If the public are to face year-on-year increases simply because the cost of living has increased, there will be a need to demonstrate that some effiencies have been achieved in the operation of the organisation.

Stephen Hesford: I have a question that my hon. Friend may explore further later. Is he saying that there is a hidden profit in the tunnels, that it is not demonstrated as such and that some of the so-called debt is a paper exercise? Is that the point that he is making? If so, I encourage him to develop it later.

Ben Chapman: I should certainly like to develop that point later, with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now move quickly through the points that I want to make, in view of your guidance.
	It is true that Merseytravel consults regularly, but the problem is that it does not always take account of the results of that consultation. Under the Bill, it has basically unfettered powers to pursue its own ends, more or less irrespective of the strength of its case. It is obliged to consult in respect of the local transport plan, but not necessarily to take heed of the consultation. While it may appear that there is an elected mandate, that is not so in reality. I think that there is a substantial democratic deficit.

Peter Kilfoyle: Does my hon. Friend apply the same argument about accountability to the other residuary bodies? Does he feel the same way about the waste disposal, fire and police authorities? Does he fully understand the history of how those bodies were established with regard to the abolition of the county council in the first place?

Ben Chapman: By and large, I take the same view about those bodies, but they are not the subject of this debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will enlighten me about that issue outside the confines of the Chamber.
	It is a maxim that there should be no taxation without representation, and it applies particularly in this context.

Robert Wareing: As a former member of Merseyside county council, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) referred, I can say that one great difference was that we had a forum of people who could be consulted whenever there was a policy change, including in relation to the Mersey tunnels toll increases. The Bill contains no suggestion about such a body, but there is tremendous opposition to it on Merseyside from business interests and trade unions.

Ben Chapman: That is absolutely so, which is why I want to build in the amendments.

George Howarth: While my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was right in an historical sense, will my hon. Friend confirm that the trade unions, with the possible exception of the self-appointed Wirral trades council, are now supportive of the Bill? At least, they did not object or continue their objections when it was considered in Committee, and the same is true of all the other objecting bodies.

Ben Chapman: That is a matter of record, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether withdrawing objections is the same as giving support, but it is certainly a fact that the objections were withdrawn, as my hon. Friend said.
	In brief, we should not have a system of taxation without representationthat is one of the cornerstones of our systembut here we have a situation in which taxation will be applied by people who cannot be voted out by those who are being taxed. Passenger transport authorities are, by their nature, political animals, yet they do not have the direct franchise given by the electors to the district council that elects their members. Although the authority comprises councillors who have been directly elected to represent a borough ward, the electorate have no control over who sits on it, and they cannot be removed. The PTA's responsibilities are probably little understood by those whose council taxes contribute a greater part of its revenue. 5 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman drafted the amendments that we are discussing, so he should know better than anyone that he is now moving beyond their scope.

Ben Chapman: I hope that I have made my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I honestly suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should not be touting for business; he should get on with the prosecution of the case for the amendments.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you guide me on that ruling? I am genuinely puzzled by it. I, too, tabled amendments in this group, and, like my hon. Friend, I am worried that if we are not successful in our amendments we will give a non-elected body the power to tax. That is the case that he was putting. I am worried by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to put a similar case, should I manage to catch your eye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that his remarks about accountability must be very closely related to the particular content of the amendments, which concern a mechanism by which tolls may or may not be increased. The more general arguments to which some of the speeches and interventions have so far related are matters that are encompassed by the Bill, but not necessarily by the amendments that the hon. Member for Wirral, South has brought to our attention.

Ben Chapman: In the light of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move on to the technicalities.

Bob Spink: Is not the point of the hon. Gentleman's amendments that they go some way towards making it more difficult for the body that is not directly accountable to those on whom the taxes would fall to impose those taxes? That is why, for instance, he wants to move from 12 months to five years and why he tabled the amendment on RPI. For my part, I do not think that he goes far enough, but I certainly support him in his general direction.

Ben Chapman: That is precisely my point. Because the PTA is not accountable to the public, it becomes accountable to itself. Because it becomes accountable to itself, it becomes internally focused. Because it becomes internally focused, and does not see the outside argument, it tends to be profligate and to increase its resources and staff, to the extent that it now has 900 employees. In the light of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not stay on the point, but I think that the public have the right to expect that the body should be properly accountable, and that is what my amendments are about. Whether it be in the course of our deliberations today or on Third Reading, we need to make that point and to get it across, because the situation is not doing a service to the people of Merseyside.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the passenger transport authority is profligate in its use of resources. I object to the implication that the 900 people who work for the PTA are employed for reasons that are not necessarily related to the activities of the authority, which serves the people of Merseyside well.

Ben Chapman: I must beg to differ. Merseyside passenger transport authority operates five miles of tunnels and three modest and elderly ferries. It administers various matters, but it is responsible for only two operations. I find it difficult to understand why that requires 900 people. Doubtless, Merseytravel will send me a message, as it usually does, asking me to explain that.

Peter Kilfoyle: If the authority is inefficient and profligate, will my hon. Friend explain why the chairman was voted chairman of the year out of all the transport authorities and why the chief executive

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is another matter that should be explained outside.

Ben Chapman: I am sorry not to have the opportunity to explain that.
	My proposal to constrain any tendency to profligacy and to encourage efficiency is based on two ideas.

George Howarth: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument as closely as I can, although he has a tendency to skip a few pages at a time. He appears to advance the argument that the mechanism is necessary because he does not believe that the PTA is an efficient, accountable and proper body for undertaking the tasks. Does he accept that many of us do not agree? Let me give one example. Councillor Robbie Crummie from Knowsley, who happens to be here at the moment, ensures that he is accountable not only to the borough council but to his electorate. He covers such issues in his election address. He makes himself very accountable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No one who is not an hon. Member can be here at the moment.

Ben Chapman: My alternative proposal is based on two ideas. In some respects, the amendments appear to contradict each other because they apply to the same clauses. However, I do not believe that they could be as damaging as the Bill. Under the first model, tolls would be increased every five years rather than every year.

Robert Wareing: In view of the indirect choice of the PTA, what difficulties does auditing the accounts of the tolls solve? I get the impression that there is no adequate auditing of the revenues from the tolls or the way in which the money is spent.

Ben Chapman: I shall deal with that later, but it is my impression that the accounts are only partially audited and that some inventive accounting goes on.
	The first model that I propose would increase tolls every five years rather than every year. It uses Merseytravel's methods in that the RPI forms the basis for the increase. However, I propose the use of a mean average figure for the five years that precede making a new order, to provide a more equitable increase.

Frank Field: My hon. Friend proposes changing the date in the Bill. Is he linking that change to other amendments or does the proposal stand alone?

Ben Chapman: To the best of my recollection, it stands on its own. I shall try to explore that issue later.
	I am proposing a mean average figure for the five years preceding the making of the new order, to provide a more equitable increase. I doubt, however, that a rise is justified at all, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has begun to elucidate.

Stephen Hesford: I am prepared to accept that my statistics are not as good as those of other hon. Members, but will my hon. Friend explain what he means by a mean average? Why did he choose that particular calculation as opposed to a median average or some other average for the five-year period?

Ben Chapman: I shall have to work this out. What I think I mean is that, if the figures over a period of five years were variously three, four, three, four and eight, the sum total would be 18, which, when divided by five, would give the mean average. I hope that that is right; that is certainly my intention.

Frank Field: The Chancellor is changing the basis for calculating price increases.

Ben Chapman: What I am proposing here is a five-yearly rise. I want to limit the rises as far as possible because, to tell the truth, I do not believe that rises are justified at all.

George Howarth: I know that my hon. Friend is an honourable man, and I know that he would not wish deliberately to mislead the House. In view of some of the statements that he has already made, therefore, will he confirm the following three points? First, Merseytravel employs 824 staffnot 900 as he saidmany of whom are employed in such activities as ensuring that there is disabled access.

Stephen Hesford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in the Chamber when the figure of 900 came up, and it did not come from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), but from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South then adopted it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that that is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. I believe that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was intervening on his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman).

George Howarth: I was indeed. Just for the sake of accuracywherever the figure of 900 came fromwill my hon. Friend confirm that there are 824 staff, many of whom are employed in necessary activities such as ensuring that there is disabled access? Will he also confirm that the audit arrangements, which he and some other hon. Members have criticised, involve the district auditor auditing the accounts of Merseytravel or the passenger transport authority, that they have been done like that for 15 years, and that they have never been qualified? Finally, will he confirm that what the Bill proposes, and what he is seeking to amend, are not annual increases but an annual review? Those two things are not necessarily the same.

Ben Chapman: First, the figure of 900 people, which my hon. Friend suggests is not as it should be, is a figure that I obtained from the Library of the House. I therefore thought that it would have sufficient collateral attached to it. On my hon. Friend's point about the accounts, I shall come to that issue in a moment and I intend to cover it as far as I can. If my hon. Friend intervened on me again, he could remind me of his second point.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend has tempted me, but he has dealt with my first and second points. It was the third point that he missed, which was that the Bill provides for an annual reviewa provision that he seeks to amendand not necessarily an annual increase, and that the two are not necessarily the same.

Ben Chapman: On that point, it is my firmly held view that, although Merseytravel built into the Bill a provision to review the increase every year and to decide whether or not to implement it, the idea of Merseytravel not implementing an increase would be similar to turkeys voting for Christmas. After all, this is the body that introduced the Bill, the body that promoted the Bill and the body which, in my view, has shown a tendency never to resist spending or raising tunnel tolls.

Robert Wareing: As always, my hon. Friend is being generous in giving way.
	Whether we are talking about an annual review or an annual increase, the fact remains that the Bill allows for an annual increase. If toll increases, inflationary as they would be, are regularly imposed annually, businesses will be subject to a great deal of uncertainty. A five-year period would help them to plan.

Ben Chapman: I entirely agree.

David Marshall: I apologise for intervening on discussion of what is principally a Merseyside matter, but as I intend to take advantage of the opportunity to vote, I should be grateful for some clarification. Coming as I do from the only passenger transport authority area in Scotland, I am interested in passenger transport authorities. Would the amendments have an adverse effect on the maintenance and refurbishment of the tunnels, and on Merseyside's public transport in general?

Ben Chapman: Certainly not. Ample money is available in Merseyside PTA, and indeed on Merseyside, whichunlike my hon. Friend's area, I suspectbenefits from objective 1 status. Money is now chasing projects rather than projects chasing money.
	I want to limit the increases not to place a burden on business, but to take account of the profits said to be inherent in the accounts of Merseytravel. It is said, for example, that any surpluses may have been transferred to reserves or appropriated, so that the bottom line does not show the full extent of the profit.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is, as I have said, an honourable man, who would not wish to mislead the House. He should, however, reflect on the answer that he gave our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). The amendments would limit Merseytravel's revenue-raising capacity, and a delay of, say, five years could well lead to the circumstances described by our hon. Friend. Wise though he is, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South cannot stare too far into the future. The restriction of revenue could, over a number of years, affect the amount available for improvements, alterations and even safety measures.

Ben Chapman: I do not think so. I think there is enough money in the tunnels, in the authority and in Merseyside to cater for almost any eventuality. What we should perhaps do is explore those sources of funds more than we have hitherto, rather than expecting users of the tunnel to pay for services when they have no practical alternative to the use of those services. That is unjust and immoral.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am sure my hon. Friend knows that objective 1 money cannot be used to fund revenue-based projects, which include health and safety projects. Moreover, in the absence of toll increases, the burden of financing substantial health and safety improvements will fall on Merseyside's ratepayers, including vast numbers of people who do not currently use the tunnel. Hence the need for the Bill.

Ben Chapman: I do not accept that argument. We have been told that there is an obligation to repay money to the districts but my understanding is that, at least in some circumstances, that money has not been repaid but gone into the general accounts of Merseytravel.
	We need to explore, which I am attempting to do, how much money is around. I do not think that it is right in economic terms or any other terms that the users of the tunnel should fund transport schemes on Merseyside. I am content that the users of the tunnel should fund the tunnels and improvements to them, as well as better facilities in themand, if need be, fund more tunnelsbut I do not think that it is right and proper to use money raised from tunnel tolls to fund other projects.

Frank Field: Has not the sponsor of the Bill let the cat out of the bag? The objection that many of us have to the Bill is that it taxes the limited number of people who use the tunnel and that the money will be used to finance transport projects far away, which our constituents will not use. If the amendment were carried, there might not be enough money in the tunnels' budget to pay for basic repairs and health and safety work. The sponsor of the Bill says that it would be unfair if taxpayers who never use the tunnel had to foot that bill, but the point behind all our amendments is that those who support the Bill wish to tax our constituents for the benefit of other constituents who never use the tunnel.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must again advise the House that issues of general principle in connection with the Bill are most appropriately discussed on Second Reading and on Third Reading. At the moment, we are discussing a particular group of amendments. The debate should be confined to those.

Ben Chapman: I hope that you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept my line of argument. What I propose to argue is that a five-yearly review is more appropriate than an annual review, or annual increase, whichever hon. Members prefer, because there is no need for increases in the first place. Part of that results from the accounting practices of the Merseyside passenger transport authority.

Peter Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend makes much of the argument that there is loads of money sloshing around on Merseyside. He has repeated the claim that, hidden away within the accounts of Merseytravel, there is money that is either being wasted or not used for the purpose for which it was designated. Is he also saying that the five local authorities on Merseyside have money to spare that they can throw at the tunnels, disproportionatelyI am one of the first to admit itfor the benefit of some constituents rather than others? Is the gist of his argument that the cost can be met from within the existing funds of the five local authorities, including Wirral?

Ben Chapman: I think that it can be met from the resources of Merseytravel and that there is scope for making more use of the ample resources that are available in Merseyside. I will develop that point later, I hope. I do not think that tunnel users should be expected to pay for other transport projects. It is a tax on them and it is not fair. My point, which is not a constituency one, is that, overall, if a tunnel toll is particular to the Merseyside economy, it will serve as a considerable competitive disadvantage to that economy because it deters investors, it deters foreign direct investment, and it costs people.
	For example, if John Lewis were to take a lorry through the tunnels four times a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year, according to my calculation the overhead would be 10,000 in that lorry alone. If we multiply that figure by the number of lorries going to and fro from the docks, the number of delivery vans going through and all the people who are legitimately trying to get to work, we realise that we are talking about a considerable disadvantage to the Merseyside economy. If we then increase that considerable disadvantage year on year, whether we need to or not, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.
	Liverpool has just won the title of capital of culture, which will allow its development in various ways. Why, then, should we hinder that development by passing this Bill? Hindering that development is precisely what this Bill would do.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend's amendment proposes a five-year review, yet he keeps referring to annual increases. What he means is annual reviews, which are not necessarily the same thing.

Ben Chapman: I thought that I had already answered that point, so I will not repeat it. What I am trying to say in my own awkward way is that it is said that Merseytravel goes in for some creative or unusual accounting, which allows profit from the tunnels to appear to be less than it really is. One difficulty with this issue is that when we try to raise it, somebody always tries to shut us up. When people raise it publicly, they are threatened with action. We may not be exclusively right in the views that we hold, and there may be nuances of error; but it is surely right and proper that we discuss these things openly and freely.

Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend mentioned an internal loan and accounting practices. Does he agree that the internal loan appeared to be

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This cannot have anything to do with the amendment at all. The only threat to the free discussion of this issue by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) is from the Chair, in that I have to uphold the rules of the House to ensure that debate is strictly relevant to the proposals that he has placed before the House. He has been speaking for 43 minutes already and he is in danger of becoming a little repetitious. I simply give a first warning on that.

Ben Chapman: I shall move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to deal with some other points. I have probably covered the point about Merseytravel's accounts, although not in the detail that I would have liked. However, there will be further opportunities to discuss it.
	The tunnels are in profit and there is no sign of them ceasing to be so. A five-yearly rise seems perfectly adequate to me, and, taking into account the fragility of the Merseyside economy, my amendment would limit the damaging effects on local industry and business of an opportunity to apply a year-on-year toll rise. The current arrangements are thoroughly bad, and a five-yearly review would be better.

Robert Wareing: My hon. Friend might like to consider one aspect of the memorandum to the Bill. Merseyside passenger transport authority said that the
	two cornerstones of this Government's policy on integrated transport are to develop public transport and reduce road traffic.
	If it is really true that Merseytravel wishes to reduce road traffic, it is going about it the wrong way. An increase in tolls will not be like a congestion charge, because demand to use the Mersey tunnels is inelastic. In fact, such an increase will simply raise the authority's revenue without cutting traffic, because there is no alternative and there are no plans to help public transport going through the Mersey tunnels.

Ben Chapman: That is absolutely right. The fact remains that, judging by the bus services in my constituency and the letters that I receive about train services, switching to rail or to public transport in the form of coach journeys is not a practical alternative. Similarly, as I said earlier, switching to the Runcorn bridge is undesirable and not a practical alternative. It is already chronically congested to such an extent that proposals for another Mersey crossing as a response to the problem have already been made. Although the Bill is presented as a means of controlling traffic, it has nothing to do with that. It is simply another means of raising doshnothing more, nothing less.
	I shall proceed by examining the RPI minus X formula, which is specific to my proposed amendment. It uses a formula for raising tolls slightly different from Merseytravel's model. The current framework requires Merseyside passenger transport authority to justify any increase in tolls to the Secretary of State. The removal of that condition amounts to removal of accountability. Tolls could be raised in perpetuity, regardless of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, and without the approval of any outside authority or tunnel users. If the MPTA is to maintain any semblance of accountability and credibility, it must either institute a robust and, to some extent, binding system of consultation or adjust its formula to that of RPI minus X.
	The aim is to have X set as a figure by the Secretary of State. The amendment would effectively institute a system commonly used among natural monopoly utilities to provide a regulatory check on rising prices. Price regulation is designed to control the abuse of market power. The aim is to ensure that prices are no higher than would be charged by an efficient company operating in a competitive market. As I have said, I view the MPTA as an organisation with a tendency to profligacy, which necessitates the introduction of such a system in order to enforce efficiencies in preference to allowing the current unchecked growth.

Stephen Hesford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the formula that he is helpfully setting out is similar in effect to the one that was applied to the privatised utilities? It has worked well in respect of the former public companies, to the benefit of consumers.

Ben Chapman: I agree with my hon. Friend and I was going to make that point in a few moments.
	I have always felt that Merseytravel's chosen formula for annually reviewing tolls was flawed. Putting up prices in relation to inflation may seem reasonable, but inflation may not always be at its present level. During the Thatcher years, it reached 15 per cent., or thereaboutsmy hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong. If we increased tunnel tolls by 15 per cent., without any effective consultative mechanisms in place, it would indeed be disastrous for the economy of Merseyside. It has to be remembered that the retail prices index is based on the price of a basket of goodsessentially products such as food and fuel. The MPTA, the Mersey tunnels and other public utilities do not use themor at least not in any large measure.
	I am not happy about the fact that Merseytravel is asking for an arbitrary power to raise tolls year on year.
	When price increases have been justified in the past, they have been granted, and I can see no reason why they should not be granted in future, provided a case is made for them.

Stephen Hesford: Is my hon. Friend aware that while the Bill passes through the House, under the scheme for raising charges that currently exists, the Merseyside passenger transport executivesomewhat cheekilyis putting through an order to raise the cost of using the tunnels? That is happening under the old system, as we speak, which demonstrates that it can be used as and when necessary.

Ben Chapman: Absolutely, and I have no problem with tunnel toll increases if they are justified. In the past, when the executive has justified increases, it has obtained them. That is why I did not raise any objection in the consultation on the toll increase. If the executive can establish a need to do so, tolls should be increased. However, the Bill asks for toll increases without justification, save that the cost of living index has risen.
	RPI minus X is effectively a price control and a method of bringing efficiency and cost-effective service to a monopoly organisation, which is what the Mersey tunnels are, being publicly owned. It was originally implemented in the 1980s and 1990s to deal with poorly managed nationalised industries and it proved effective. Costs were cut and, eventually, significant price reductions were passed on to customers. Would not we like to see that in relation to the Mersey tunnels? Merseytravel should be made to conform to the restrictions, and efficiency savings need to be made if tolls are not to keep rising. I can see no case for increasing tolls, whether or not there is any cause to do so. In fact, I can see considerable harm being caused to the public of Merseyside and to the economy.
	It seems unfair that Merseytravel expects tunnel users to give and give, while it gives nothing back.

George Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that an annual review based on the RPI, rather than RPI minus X, is the formula used for the Dartford and Severn crossings? Does he think that if it is appropriate in those cases, it is appropriate on Merseyside?

Ben Chapman: No, I do not. We are not discussing the Dartford or any other crossing: we are discussing the Mersey tunnels, which are a sort of artery that is peculiar to Merseyside. They are the busiest route in our anthill. They are an essential artery for the economy. The other crossings are national issues, but the Mersey tunnels are different.

John McDonnell: Surely the point is that we are discussing the Mersey tunnels, not national tolling, so the issue is irrelevant. My hon. Friend said that he saw no cause to increase tolls. What would be a reason for an increase in tolls?

Ben Chapman: If there was an effective means of controlling traffic flows through the tunnel, it might be one reason. Another reason might be a demonstrated shortage of funds in Merseytravel. Tunnel users have no choice but to go through them, be it to the night shift at Jaguar or to hospitals or other jobs.

Stephen Hesford: To the theatre.

Ben Chapman: Theatre-goers have a degree of choice.
	For the most part, people go through the tunnels because they have to; they have no choice in the matter. On Second Reading, one hon. Member said that he went through the tunnels regularly, just for the pleasure of it. By and large, people do not do that; they make the journey out of necessity.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is overegging the pudding somewhat. I used to teach at Birkenhead tech, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I travelled every day, from Huyton to Birkenhead, on public transportby train first, then on the underground loop. That is perfectly possible, and people do have choice. My hon. Friend should not be so misleading as to suggest that they do not have alternatives.

Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that, young though he looks, it is a year or two since he worked at Birkenhead tech. I think that that was before the deregulation of bus services, although I may be wrong about that.

George Howarth: I do not know whether I explain myself badly, or whether my hon. Friend does not listen, but I travelled by train and on the underground loop from Liverpool city centre, and neither option has been affected in the slightest by bus deregulation.

Ben Chapman: I did not misunderstand the point at all. My point is that tunnel users have no choice. Bus services have deteriorated since my hon. Friend used to travel to Birkenhead, whether he used them or not. If my postbag is to be believed, the train services are pretty chronic

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very interesting discussion of the various modes of transport throughout Liverpool and the Wirral, but the hon. Gentleman should return to the fairly precise amendment to which he is speaking.

Ben Chapman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend has said that an increase in price could be used to influence the flow of traffic through the tunnel. Does he agree with those who argue that alternative forms of transport exist and that increasing the charges in the proposed way is a form of congestion charging? Will that be part of the policy inflicted on the public as a result of the Bill?

Ben Chapman: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) must not get sidetracked by interventions such as that. He was speaking very specifically to a group of amendments. He ought to do that now.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I did not want to lead my hon. Friend astray. My question arose out of his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We ought to get on with the debate.

Ben Chapman: At present, Merseytravel must justify increases in tolls. That should not change. Indeed, I think that Merseytravel should also be made to justify properly its spending on other projects, especially when using money from the tunnels. The formula RPI minus X provides an accountable system for that. It brings efficiencies and cost-effectiveness, and prevents wild increases in tolls.
	Across the utilities, the present statutory framework does not prescribe what form price regulation should take, but in practice the regulators have chosen to use RPI minus X. Price caps are set by the regulator for the period of a price review, which is typically five years, on the basis of detailed forecasts of costs and revenues provided by the regulated organisation. I see considerable merit in that, and there is no reason why it should not be applied to Merseyside passenger transport authority.
	In the immediate post-privatisation period, there were concerns over the level of profits made by some of the privatised companies, in spite of the price caps put in place on flotation. That is why the Government levied a windfall tax immediately on coming into power. That dealt with excess profits following the original privatisation. Subsequently, the mechanism has been tightened and there are more effective controls. They give the right incentives to deliver efficiencies and should continue to bear down on prices. If the system is good enough for the majority of our utilities, why cannot it be applied to the tunnels? As I hope I have demonstrated, that regulatory system is effective and flexible and, in most instances, has been used successfully.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so generously. Will he confirm that his definition of efficiencies in the MPTA means job losses, and, if so, how many such losses would he expect to occur before he is satisfied with the situation?

Ben Chapman: No, efficiency does not mean job losses; it means effective operation. I do not have a dictionary with me, but the word certainly does not mean job losses; it means doing things in the best possible way.

Judy Mallaber: What proportion of the costs would be for staffing? If operating efficiency did not come from staffing cuts, where does my hon. Friend imagine it would come from?

Ben Chapman: It is not for me to run the Mersey tunnels or the MPTA; it is for the chairman, the executive and the authority to decide on those things.
	RPI minus X was applied effectively to utilities, so why are people saying that it would mean job losses if it was applied to the Mersey tunnels? That does not make sense.

Stephen Hesford: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, new schedule 1, which I proposed, was not selected, but it included a short definition of efficient manner that my hon. Friend might agree was suitable. It stated that there should be value for money and that the management costs should not exceed

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The reason why amendments are not selected is well known to the hon. Gentleman. We cannot start to discuss amendments that have not been selected.

Ben Chapman: Whatever the definition of efficiency, in the absence of a regulator, the RPI minus X system would provide a check on the MPTA in the form of the Secretary of State. Indeed, I understand that the system would allow the Secretary of State to reduce tolls, if he saw fit, simply by raising X to a value higher than that of RPI.
	We need to establish a clear, long-term principle for price regulation that will ensure that consumers receive a fair deal, and that the legitimacy and stability of the regulatory system for the tunnels is maintained. We need to ensure that RPI minus X delivers that.
	The system provides incentives to efficiency in the absence of a regulator, relying on price regulation administered by the Secretary of State. That background both informs the case of the MPTA and carries it forward. It shows us the application of RPI minus X and the importance of transparency, which is sometimes difficult in such circumstances, in the mechanisms that would help to spread best practice and cost-effectiveness through accountability.
	The primary aim of price regulation is to protect consumers. One approach would be to rely exclusively on RPI minus X. An alternative would be to make greater use of error correction mechanisms as a supplement to RPI minus X, thereby providing a clear, built-in means of sharing the benefits when they differ from those envisaged when the price cap was set.
	Price regulation is designed to control abuse by a monopoly. The aim is to ensure that prices are no higher than those that would be charged by an efficient organisation in a competitive market.

John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend clarify what he defines as a competitive market in this field?

Ben Chapman: In this field, there is no competitive market, so there must be a mechanism to arrive at one. That is what RPI minus X does.
	The basic system that I have set out will, I hope, institute accountability and regulation as a means to achieve efficiency and cost-effectivenessstrands that are currently lacking throughout the authority and that will not result from the Bill. That is why I am proposing this important amendment.

George Howarth: I hesitate to intervene again because I have had to correct my hon. Friend on so many occasions, but will he confirm that RPI minus X, which he advocates, is the very formula that led to the bankrupting of Railtrack, that Mersey tunnel debt repayments amount to some 14 million a yearthe answer that he was unable to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) a few moments agothat maintenance, including the staff involved, costs 11 million a year and that capital refurbishment costs 7 million a year?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long intervention. Interventions are becoming very long.

Ben Chapman: We have been told that Railtrack was driven into bankruptcy by that mechanism, but to the best of my knowledge, it did not go into bankruptcy, and in my view, management, rather than the formula, was the problem.

George Howarth: I shall try to make this point later, but my hon. Friend is of course right, but the fact that Railtrack ended up having to be saved from bankruptcy proceedings by the then Secretary of State makes my point for me.

Ben Chapman: Well, I do not think that it does, nor do I think that my hon. Friend has corrected me in any instance. He has certainly made some contrary points, but by no stretch of the imagination could they be called corrections.
	I shall now finish. This important amendment would transform the nature of the MPTA and its relationship with local people and the local economy, and in my view it would make the relationship very much better and the organisation very much more effective.

Stephen Hesford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I enlist your guidance on this group of amendments? I am attracted by some amendments more than others. In respect of selection for voting, if I wanted to vote on amendment No. 35, for example, would it be in order to ask to vote on it individually in due course?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Depending on how the debate has gone and on how much debate has taken place on that amendment, there is no reason why the occupant of the Chair should not allow such a vote, but that is entirely a matter for the Chair.

Bob Spink: I was the Chairman of the Committee that considered this, then opposed, private Bill some months ago. After one and a half days of sittings, the opponents withdrew and, therefore, the detailsincluding amendments such as those in this group, which relate to tolls, the timing of the increases in tolls and the basis on which those increases would be determinedwere not considered by that Committee in any way, shape or form. They were not scrutinised; the Bill itself was not scrutinised, so I must report to the House that what was broadly a bad and undemocratic Bill was not corrected and that it should now be rejected.
	Let me turn to the amendments in this group. In particular, I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 22, 23, 35 and 24.

Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am grateful to him for informing the House of his position during consideration in Committee. Having looked at the proceedings in Committee, is it his view, as it was mine, that he and other hon. Members were not helped in their inquiries by the answers that counsel for Merseytravel gave in Committee?

Bob Spink: May I crave your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Yes, I think that it is right to suggest that the Committee did not feel that its concerns and worries were dealt with. In particular, the Committee did not deal with items relating to amendments such as those in this groupNos. 22, 35 and so on. There were a number of significant problems that the Committee wished to explore, but we were unable to do so because a deal was done behind the Committee's back. It was simply reported to us that the opposition had withdrawn, and the Committee had to fold immediately, without further scrutiny of this bad and undemocratic Bill.

Frank Field: Given that the hon. Gentleman chaired the Committee stage of this private Bill, what he has just said is immensely important. I wish him to emphasise it, because there is some criticism in Merseyside of those who wish to scrutinise the Bill properly, and we are dubbed wreckers. It is important that people back home realise that had those who were lodging objections not done, as he described it, a deal behind the Committee's back, the Committee stage would have taken its proper time, with proper consideration, and would have reported

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. The hon. Gentleman who has the Floor ought now to deal with the amendments before the House.

Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the serious allegations made about the way in which business was conducted surrounding this private Bill, and I seek your guidance. I presume that there is a mechanism in the House whereby the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and other Committee members, if they felt so persuaded, could take up their complaints about lack of co-operation in relation to the promoters' legal advisers on the Bill, and have the matter deliberated on. Could you advise us on what that mechanism is?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are all sorts of ways in which Members can go about their business in this House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. My concern is to preserve the business today. To that end, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor would deal with the amendments before the House.

Bob Spink: I am delighted to turn to the amendments, which go some way towards removing the power to tax from a body that is not directly accountable to those on whom those taxes would fall. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) was therefore right to table amendments that seek to restrict the power of the Merseyside passenger transport authority to raise taxes through tolls. If the Bill is passed without amendment, the House will be unable to prevent the MPTA from raising taxes. The MPTA would effectively have more power even than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is at least nominally controllable by this House.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman makes an issue of the power to tax by a body that is indirectly elected. It has already been said that that is not unique on Merseyside. The Merseyside police authority has the power to tax via a precept everybody on Merseyside, regardless of whether they use its facilities. What does he think of that

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is now moving all over the place. It is about narrowly defined amendments, and if the hon. Gentleman cannot address them, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to address the amendments. Let me go straight to amendment No. 35, which relates to RPI minus X. Under that amendment, X is fixed by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House, and this House is accountable to the population on whom the taxes would fall. It therefore strikes me that the amendment is extremely democratising and entirely worthy, and is therefore worthy of our support.

Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday mentioned to the House moving away from the RPI to a more European model? Would the hon. Gentleman like to see a more European model inserted into the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the Chair.

Bob Spink: I do not think that the amendment contains a European model, and I would not support such a measure.
	It is not right to say that just because the system contains some anomalies and several non-democratic bodies are effectively able to raise taxation without representation, we should create another such body. The whole point of the amendments is to seek to make the Bill more democratic and taxation procedures more accountable to the people on whom the taxes would fall. I support the amendments, so far as they go, and if possible, I would like them to go further.

Frank Field: I support amendment No. 18, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). I shall also speak to amendment No. 35.
	I have a different frame of mind from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). I do not share his views about the transport authority. I have been a Member of the House for a little longer than him and have had eye-to-eye contact with several bodies whose behaviour reflects badly on my constituents' welfare and with which I am unhappy. I rejoice that I am not trying to have an eye-to-eye with the transport authority today.
	Recent changes have been beneficial. I admire my hon. Friend's courage for speaking as he did and saying what he believed to be true while knowing that those views would get back to the people about whom he spoke. I usually find it easier to be rude to people than to be polite, so I have a slightly different role this evening vis--vis the transport authority.
	It is worth putting on record the fact that amendment No. 35 relates to a different period from that covered by my stewardship of my constituency. It also relates directly to my hon. Friend's questions about efficiency. The amendment and the way in which he spoke to it were attractive.
	I shall tell the House a tale. In my early days as a Member, the tunnel workers held a strike. The then tunnel authorities put out honesty buckets and found that they collected more money from the buckets than they did when the staff were at work and tolls were collected. That might suggest that it is totally proper that the transport authority in our area, as opposed to authorities about which I know nothing, has its mind wonderfully concentrated on finding ways to run the tunnels more efficiently.
	Although I admire the skills of the senior officers who look after the transport authority, we all know what happens if we have a mechanism that concentrates the mind wonderfullythat is what Dr. Johnson said about being hanged in the morning. The RPI minus X provision in amendment No. 35 might well do that, and I hope that we will have the chance to vote on it.

Bob Spink: rose

Frank Field: I was about to address the argument made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but I shall give way to him first.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on tabling amendment No. 18, because it would achieve something laudable. It would force the Merseyside passenger transport authority to examine its efficiency and try to find management and operational efficiencies, as every other public bodypolice forces, educational establishments or hospitalsis forced to do. Leaving the Bill unamended would be a bad thing because it would give the authority the power to raise taxes whether or not it examined its efficiency, and would give the House no means of controlling that.

Frank Field: It would indeed, and I wish to address that point. What is so extraordinary about the Bill if it is not amended is that it gives the Merseyside passenger transport authority powers that we have jealously guarded over the centuries because we are unwilling to concede them to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. We limit every taxation measure that the Chancellor brings to this place by giving him authority to raise taxes for one year only. The Bill would give to a body that is indirectly responsible to elected bodies in Merseyside powers that far extend those we give to our Chancellor. As soon as I read the Bill, I realised that that was unacceptable. There is much in it that I support, as I shall make clear when I speak to amendment No. 18.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I seek clarification on two points. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he does not believe that the staff of Merseyside passenger transport authority are thieves? Will he also acknowledge that the inflation increases enjoyed by the fire authority and the police authority are awarded without the preamble that the MPTA is expected to pursue to get increases to support its operational activities?

Frank Field: I have already learned about the dangers of responding to interventions, partly because I do not want to incur your disfavour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and partly because I want to emphasise something that my hon. Friend said when she responded to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton was dragging a red herring in the path of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, who did not answer the question that he raised. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) did, and that answer is crucial to the argument that I want to develop.
	I will not respond to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby because I do not wish to attack the transport authority. It is not its fault that it has been set up by Parliament in the way that it has. Bodies such as hospitals, school boards and transport authorities will increasingly be elected directly, certainly before our political lives are over. That is what our constituents will demand of us and legislation will be introduced to that effect. However, we are not discussing that today.
	I have no wish to cast aspersions on the transport authority. I do not want to consider the democratic deficit. That is the body we have. I do not, however, want to give it taxing powers of the nature that are set out in the Bill for the very reason that my good hon. Friend gave when she responded to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton. She said how awful it would be if amendment No. 35 were agreed to, because if it forced such efficiencies and sent the accounts into deficit, who would bail out the transport authority? My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton suggested that it would be the local authorities, which previously had to shoulder the body's deficits. The point he raised was proper. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said how unfair it would be that those who largely do not use the tunnels would have to make up in their council tax the deficit that might arise if amendment No. 35 were accepted. That gave the game away.
	Of course, we expect hon. Members whose constituents rarely, if ever, use the tunnel to be in favour of the measure. I have had informal talks with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who taught at what he called Birkenhead tech. That shows how long ago it wasit has changed its name twice since its students benefited from his teaching skills.

George Howarth: The body in question may well have changed its name, but I have not changed mine. If I may correct myself, it was called Birkenhead college of technologyI was just using a shorthand description.

Frank Field: Indeed. Some of my constituents who come to me to talk about their welfare problems refer to the unemployment assistance boarda body that was active in the 1930s. They know that the name has changed, but other things have not. My hon. Friend is right; those of us on my side of the river knew perfectly well what he was referring to.
	To return to the substantive point, I share the anguish of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that her constituents who rarely use the tunnel may, if amendment No. 35 is accepted, have to foot the bill for the deficit. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South has the cheek to suggest that her constituents should pay extra money so that people from Wirral, South, Wirral, West, areas further down the peninsula and Birkenhead can use the tunnel. May I make the case for such payments by asking a rhetorical question? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby not understand the anguish of people whom we are trying to represent and who use the tunnels? Why should they pay over and above the cost of the tunnels, and other measures included in the Bill, so that there can be transport improvements in her constituency, where people rarely use the tunnel? Why should my constituents' contributions to the toll revenue pay for those improvements?
	I am all in favour of the transport authority seeking ways in which to improve our transport, but I do not totally share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South about the authority. I have just moved house in Birkenhead, and use public transport more than I used to. Given the constraints on such transport, I am impressed. Of course we want further improvements, but when we make them, the cost of doings so should be fairly shared. People who are clustered around the tunnel entrances on both sides of the river constitute most of those who use the tunnel, and they should not have to pay for improvements in Crosby, Southport and elsewhere. When we come to discuss improvements, we should think about the transport authority's general powers to raise money and the general powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise money and subsidise public transport. We should consider using those broader shoulders to carry the burden of financing improvements in Merseyside overall.

Stephen Hesford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Field: In a moment. I am not asking people who have to use the tunnel to contribute more than anybody else or pay for improvements to the exclusion of others. I shall give way to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West, but I shall then talk about what we should give to the transport authority in the Bill, although I am not in favour of its final catch-all clause.

Stephen Hesford: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the Bill's sponsor is willing to swap what she believes is one iniquityit arose when the cluster of local authorities that had put money into the Mersey tunnels wanted their money backfor another? The difference is that the new regime, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, will benefit the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) at the expense of ours. When money was loaned by the five local authorities to bail out the Mersey tunnel, it was believed that that would have economic benefits for the Mersey sub-region as a whole.

Frank Field: I certainly agree with that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will catch the Deputy Speaker's eye so that he can develop that important view. I appeal to my hon. Friends, who are fine representatives, as I try to be in Birkenhead, to examine the issue of taxation that was raised by the previous speaker, and how that ought to override the partial interest that they have in the measure to get my constituents and other constituents who have to use the tunnel to pay for improvements in their constituencies.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The point that I made did not ignore the fact that the people of Sefton and of Crosby have made multi-million pound donations to the development and management of the tunnels, but there comes a point when an ongoing subsidy is difficult to manage and difficult to accept, when 93 per cent. of my constituents do not use the facility. When money is tight, we must look at priorities. That is the view that I have taken on their behalf.

Frank Field: I do not dispute that for a moment, but it is separate from the substantive issue that we are debating, or anything to do with the Bill that my hon. Friend has been proposing. When I get on to amendment No. 18

Ben Chapman: rose

Frank Field: I want to give way to as many hon. Members as possible, although I know the dangers of doing so. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the economies of the tunnel do not relate to the users of the tunnel alone? The economies of the tunnel affect people throughout Merseyside and far beyondpeople in north Wales, east Lancashire and, in some circumstances, Cheshire[Interruption]and Sefton. Adding charges to the tunnels would be detrimental to them.

Frank Field: Of course it would. I am sorry that, because of my hon. Friend's urgency in completing his contribution, he did not have a chance to develop that.
	I again appeal to hon. Members to put aside their partial views on the measure and the immediate advantages in favour of the longer-term advantage. In that intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South was rightly hinting at the fact that in trying to represent the views of our constituents, all of us have a vital interest in seeing our region do as well as possible. If there is a measure that would make our region less attractive and pull away from Liverpool the huge spin-off of regeneration that came from Glasgow, and the cultural effects of that right down to the north Wales border, it will be to the detriment of all our constituents if it takes effect. We should put aside the partial interests represented in the Bill and concentrate on the major issues.

Several hon. Members: rose

Frank Field: I shall give way in the order in which I saw hon. Members seeking to intervene.

Peter Kilfoyle: It is high-minded of my right hon. Friend to appeal to objectivity and resolve, but none of us is perfect. Will he explain how he thinks I should react, given that of the regular users of the Mersey tunnelprivate car owners23 per cent. come from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman)? I understand my hon. Friend arguing on behalf of those people, but only a small proportion13 per cent.come from the entire city of Liverpool, and a very small proportion of those come from my constituency. Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is reasonable to feel partial towards those people who get nothing out of the tunnel?

Frank Field: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) replies to that, I am sure he will appreciate that the argument is starting to widen out again. I know he did not intend that, but I should be grateful if he would gently return to the amendments before the House.

Frank Field: I was going to resist answering that question, on the basis that it has nothing to do with the measures before us. If my hon. Friend was saying that all the major local authorities bailed out the two tunnels in the past and that, when it comes to paying back the debts, they should get their money back, I totally support him. When my hon. Friends allow me to get on to amendment No. 18, I shall make that plain. I am not asking hon. Members representing constituents with a vested interest in terms of the money that they sank into the tunnels in order to keep them open, largely for the benefit of constituents on the Wirralalthough of course, there is also a general benefit to the economy and culture of our region as a wholenot to take such a position. I have no wish to table amendments to try to rob constituents in other parts of Liverpool of their proper due in repayment of the money that they gave to bail out and keep open the tunnels, which are a primary concern to our side in the Wirral, as a lot of employment used to be over in Liverpool, although that is becoming less so as employment is developed in north Wales. Of course the issue is more important to us. None the less, previous debts have to be met, and that should happen without the imposition on us of a tax for ever and a day until we get around to removing the Bill, should it appear on the statute book.

Bob Spink: The right hon. Gentleman is advancing his arguments very carefully, as he always does. Does he not regret that amendment No. 18, which seeks to give the MPTA the ability to freeze tolls, was not properly discussed by my Committee? Those who opposed the Bill, so that it went to an Opposed Private Bill Committee

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to previous proceedings. We now have the opportunity to debate the amendment, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Frank Field: I know that you understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the reason why some of us, in our excitement and the urgency of our wish to discuss the issues, might stray a little beyond any amendmentI have been very careful to resist my hon. Friends' efforts to bring me out of orderis that there was no proper Committee stage. If I had not, in my naive way, thought that those who puffed up their chests and told us that the provisions would be ruthlessly examined in Committee were serious, I would have made some objections to ensure that we had a proper Committee stage.

Bob Spink: Returning to amendment No. 18, surely the ability to freeze tolls would help businesses in the general locality and region, and thereby enable that region to generate more jobs and economic activity. That was the very point that the right hon. Gentleman was making before I so rudely and improperly interrupted him previously.

Frank Field: When I get around to speaking to amendment No. 18, I hope to deal with those points and to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton and others that my amendment does not seek to rat on the tunnels authority's historic debt to the surrounding authorities. The money was given and it was most beneficial to constituencies on the other side of the river, and it should be repaid handsomely and with interest to those authorities. However, that is a separate issue from the suggestion that our constituents should be taxed for ever and a day to pay for some good things in Crosby, Southport or even Walton.

Stephen Hesford: My right hon. Friend mentioned the benefits that could accrue across Merseyside and referred to cultural and business activities. Does he agree that sporting activities could also benefit? One particular sporting activity that we want to succeed is the open championship that is coming to Hoylake in 2006.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead must resist these interventions. When he says that he intends to resist them, he must genuinely do so.

Frank Field: I shall resist responding to the intervention, although I had rather a good way in which to link it to the figures on movements through the tunnels that were given to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton.
	I have so far spoken in support of amendment No. 35, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, and supported the very important point on taxation that was made by the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, which would have been probed properly had we had a proper Committee stage. We would then have had the Committee's report for the House to consider at this stage of the Bill's proceedings, but we have been denied that. I am therefore immensely grateful for the seriousness of the Chairman's intervention on the whole tenor of the Bill.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it was not possible to have a Committee, as hon. Members would understand it, on the Billin fact, a Committee on Opposed Bills sat, but a number of petitioners to that Committee withdrew their objections prior to its taking evidence. Moreover, my right hon. Friend had the opportunity, as we all did

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that we are not here to debate previous proceedings. The hon. Lady's comments are quite out of order.

Frank Field: I will again resist any temptation to answer my hon. Friend's points directly or indirectly.
	I wish to move proceedings forward by speaking to amendment No. 18, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West. I tabled the amendment because we did not have the consideration in Committee that I would have hoped for, and because of the intransigence of the people who are promoting the Bill. We were denied a proper Committee stage because people withdrew their objections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the right hon. Gentleman very directly that he now has the opportunity to debate the amendments that are before the House, one of which is in his name, and I think that he should do precisely that.

Frank Field: I am desperately trying to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by speaking to amendment No. 18.
	Because of the intransigence of those who are promoting the measure and are not prepared to consider reasonable argument outside this Chamber, and because we were denied a report from the Committee stage that might have helped our deliberations, I tabled several amendments, one of which is amendment No. 18. It relates to schedule 1(1) and (3).

Stephen Hesford: My right hon. Friend said that there was no opportunity to debate the measures. Can he tell me how many meetings have been made available between him

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to that is no, he cannot.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As did your predecessor in the Chair, you have properly and repeatedly drawn our attention to what is and is not a proper intervention, yet hon. Friendsand, I confess, on at least one occasion myselfhave repeatedly led speakers in the opposite direction. Is it not about time that we all realised that we should be debating the amendment? 6.30 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order, but it would be sensible if the hon. Gentleman took his own advice.

Frank Field: We are told that if one sinner repents, there is much rejoicing in heaven. If my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East will not try to lead us further astray with his interventions, it will help our proceedings.
	Amendment No. 18 relates to proposed new section 91(3), which has five sub-paragraphs, in schedule 1. I do not object to the transport authority being given the power to vary tunnel costs under the Bill so that the costs and expenses that it incurs in managing, operating and maintaining the tunnels' undertakings are met. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby suggested that somehow we were trying to move amendments that would mean that the authority could not maintain the tunnels in the way in which people expect. I have no wish for the authority to be without those funds.
	Sub-paragraph (b) would ensure that the authority had the money to pay off the interest on money that had been borrowed to finance the tunnels' construction and some past debt. I do not object to tunnel tolls being set to a level that fully covers maintenance and the health and safety aspects, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby rightly drew attention earlier. We are also not in the business of ratting on people who have lent money. There is a perfect legal right for interest to be paid on the debts and for the money to be repaid.
	I do not object to the authority having the power to change tolls under the Bill and thus ensure that payments to the reserves and renewals fund are maintained in respect of tunnel undertakings. I do not want to change the measure in any way that would mean that, in future, our local authorities might again be called upon to bail out the tunnels' operation. I do not wish the transport authority to be without the power to maintain the ferries. We all know that a specific private Bill would be required to get rid of the ferries.
	However, I object to sub-paragraph (e). When we have covered the costs of maintenance, met all the debt interest payments, repaid the debts, got sufficient reserves in the funds to obviate the need ever to call on local authorities to bail the operations out againthe reserves are not defined; we trust the transport authority on thatand covered the costs of ferry maintenance, the PTA should not have the power to levy general taxation, specifically on those who use the tunnels, to pay for other PTA expenditure, however important, necessary or beneficial. That burden should not fall on my constituents, or those in neighbouring constituencies on either side of the tunnel entrances. If we wish to make improvements, which I support, the money should come from general, not specific funds.

Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way once again. Has he had the opportunity to undertake any research into how long a freeze of the kind mentioned in amendment No. 18 might reasonably be expected to last? How often in any given period does he believe such a freeze might occur? What circumstances in any given period are likely to arise that would make it likely that the passenger transport authority would operate the provisions in the amendment, if it were inserted into the Bill?

Frank Field: That is the last intervention that I am going to take on this amendment, because most of the time that I have been speaking, I have been replying to interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby, for Liverpool, Walton, for Wirral, West, for Wirral, South, from the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and from the Chairman of the Committee. Obviously, I wish to make my point as clearly and powerfully as possible.
	There is much merit in amendment No. 35, in that it will be a stimulus to running our transport authority even more efficiently than the present incumbents do. It is of great importance to all of us, when we try to plan each day's worklet alone each month's or each year's workto have guidelines such as these. The freezing that is mentioned in my amendment merely relates to the fact that, if we granted the transport authority the power to raise the toll by 10pa totally proper thing to do; we do not want people putting bits and pieces of change into the machines, which would make them even more difficult to run than at presentthere could not be another automatic 10p increase until the bonus increase from a single 10p increase had been wiped out. That is a small but reasonable part of the amendment.
	My main proposal is to remove schedule 1(1)(3)(e) from the record. The transport authority has a cheek to come before the HouseI do not blame it for trying it on, but I hope that we are not going to fall for itto suggest that we should permanently delegate to it powers that we have jealously guarded from giving to any Chancellor of the Exchequer for more than 400 years. It would be wrong to entrust a non-elected body, even if it has elected representatives on it, with the task

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The words that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to leave out are covered by an amendment in the next groupamendment No. 3.

Frank Field: But they are linked to this

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not question the Chair. We shall deal with those matters when we come to amendment No. 3.

Frank Field: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I commend amendment No. 18 to the House. I hope that hon. Members realise how narrowly focused it is. Some of the other amendments are much more ambitious and sweeping than mine. I hope that the House will accept this amendment and the one that I hope to be able to speak to later in our proceedings.

John Pugh: For a private Bill, this one has had a very eventful life. We are all veterans of the gruelling campaign on Second Reading, followed by the equally gruelling campaign for the carry-over, and we are very familiar with the guerrilla tactics of the hon. Members representing the Wirral, who, to be fair, have been steadfast in their opposition, and cunning in their tactics. As matters have progressed, however, it is difficult to understand the rationale behind their continued opposition, because argument after argument has been disposed of, and petitions have been withdrawn. Tonight, instead of substantial argument, we have heard a prolonged attack on the staff, the members and the executive of the Merseyside passenger transport authority. To some extent, that is a sign that those hon. Members are losing the argument.
	The Bill is not about having, or not having, tolls. We have tolls. It is not about high tolls or low tolls

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not deliver a Second Reading speech or make general remarks; he must speak directly to the amendments.

John Pugh: That is exactly what I am endeavouring to do. Primarily, we are discussing a mechanism for the setting of tolls, which is what all the amendments are about, and the revising of that mechanism.
	We suggest the replacement of a toll-setting system that allows each and every rise to be accompanied by a public inquiry with a system allowing the MPTA, with all its faults, to raise tolls in line with inflationaccording to choice, and at the time of an annual reviewand to raise them above inflation only with the consent of the Secretary of State. There are arguments, into which I will not venture now, about what the surplus should be used for; amendment No. 18 touches on that. We could argue about whether it should be used for transport purposes, for instance. What we are really arguing about in this context, however, is the change in the mechanism.
	I understand that the proposed change is objected to principally because of a fear of economic damageeconomic damage to individuals who, according to the hon. Member for Wirral, South, already spend as much as 600 a year on travelling to and fro, and economic damage to business, which has also been mentioned today.

Stephen Hesford: Is there not a wider case than the economic damage case, which the hon. Gentleman and his constituents may wish to consider? Is there not the possibility of a cost to Merseyside as a whole in terms of opportunity?

John Pugh: In earlier debates Members have emphasised the issue of cultural loss. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) also mentioned cancer patients going to Clatterbridge. The main point people are making, however, is that there will be appreciable costs to the citizens of Wirral, or to the community of Merseyside as a whole, in terms of economic output.
	Labour Members, fearing that economic danger, would obviously prefer to retain the right to a public inquiry, rather than an inquiry involving the MPTA; but it is difficult for Members who are not from the Merseyside area to grasp what is wrong with a local authority body keeping charges in line with inflation, and why each and every protest should end in a public inquiry. Anyone who has served on a local authority body knows that, in the case of capital and revenue budgets, fees and charges are reviewed annuallyyet involving the MPTA and other such bodies in the process is apparently a reprehensible crime.

Frank Field: One of the attractive aspects of the Liberals' standing for election in Liverpool has been that over a period of years they proposed to increase council tax by less than the rate of inflation, and they now propose no increase at all. If such a stimulus to the good management of its affairs is good for the city of Liverpool, why is it not good for the PTA?

John Pugh: It may or may not be good, depending on the circumstances. I have to say that amendment No. 18 is redundant, because under the current legislation, if the MPTA judges freezing the toll to be in the interests of the economic welfare of Liverpool, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Trying to inhibit it from reviewing the toll annually or raising it in line with inflation is a different matter.

Stephen Hesford: Can the hon. Gentleman give me a single instance of a freezing of the toll during its life of 70-odd years?

John Pugh: One would also be hard pushed to find an occasion on which council tax was frozen under past Labour administrations in Liverpool, but it can happen and it might happen.
	Whether or not the legislation is passed tonight, an indirectly elected body will still levy a tax. Voting the legislation out will not change that. However, that body can be extensively lobbied, and has some good professional advice and a degree of democratic accountabilitya lot more than exists, for example, in the police authority, of which I was a member. Hon. Members need reminding that any plans formulated by the MPTA for funding need to go through the local transport plan process. The community needs to be consulted widely on them: bodies in the community and local councils need to be consulted.

Robert Wareing: The hon. Gentleman said that the tolls have always been there. They have; but the reason they were introduced was to pay off the debt of the Mersey tunnels. That has always been the priority. The hope was that, when that eventually happened, the tolls could go altogether. Now the tolls will be used not just to pay off the debt but to provide revenue for services not linked to the tunnels themselves. That is people's fear: the tolls will not be swept away.

John Pugh: I am not aware that people in Merseyside are counting on the tolls not being levied for their Christmas money. The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that the original purpose of the tolls was to pay the capital cost and that the purpose is being changed. That is conceded. We support the change in purpose because it is a good one. It feeds into an integrated transport system, which I hope all hon. Members support; but however one views the MPTA and local authority bodies on Merseyside, they have no fundamental interest in wreaking economic havoc in the area. They have to take on board the interests of the citizens, who elect them in one way or another, and of local business, which they are compelled to consult regularly. The realisation that the MPTA has only a modest objective has led to a reduction in argument and to the general acceptance by most people that the legislation is reasonable.
	The amendment appears to look at a cumbersome and indefensible old system, to look at a simple, better, more rational system that could be defended outside Merseyside, and to suggest instead a series of cumbersome new systems built around the five-year system, which I do not think anyone apart from the supporters of the amendment understand.

Stephen Hesford: If it is streamlining the system, why does the Bill keep, as well as any new system, the old system?

John Pugh: I think that a clear preference is expressed in the Bill for the new system. The hon. Gentleman would not argue against it if he thought that the old system was going to persist. Amendments tabled by Labour Members are designed not to make it more workable but to make it unworkable and confusing and to cause delay. If we could assure you that the MPTA was the most efficient body on God's earth and that it was thoroughly accountable and ready to put its head on the block every year for election, you would not withdraw your opposition

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.

John Pugh: I apologise.

Frank Field: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so misunderstood my contribution and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). We are prepared to see that delegation of authority. We are not trying to argue for the status quo and the bizarre procedure where, every time the body wanted to change the toll by 10p, we had to debate it in the House of Commons. We want it to behave responsibly in exercising that power.

John Pugh: The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I have cast aspersions on his intentions or those of other Labour Members. I am sure that their intentions are thoroughly honourable, that they would like to have a rational discussion of the Bill, and that they have done all they can to ensure that that takes placebut at no point do they deal with the fundamental concern. The Mersey tunnels have lost 10 million on average; they are not losing that at the moment but they have in the past. Unless the legislation is changed, that will still be a problem for most Merseyside Members.

Andrew Miller: I shall try to explain briefly the particular circumstances affecting my constituents that cause me to support the amendments, which seek to create delays, RPI minus X and then stability. My constituents have a special set of circumstances, and all those present accept that they constitute a large proportion of the users of the tunnels. Of course, my authority is not one of the shareholding authorities of the Merseyside passenger transport authority. It is argued that the fact that it is not a shareholder creates the logic of no representation without taxation, because it has not been responsible for the debts. However, the reverse is equally true: proportionately, it puts a huge amount of money into the authority, so it is entitled to a say.
	In my view, legislation is required to bring about delay, RPI minus X and stability, thereby creating the five-year period. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will acknowledge that section 1(1)(h) of the Local Government Act 1999, which brought about the concept of best value, refers to
	a metropolitan county passenger transport authority.
	The Act describes it as a best value authority that
	must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
	The Act later states:
	For the purpose of deciding how to fulfil the duty arising under subsection (1) an authority must consult . . . representatives of persons liable to pay any tax, precept or levy to or in respect of the authority.
	During previous debates on the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have heard the argument from Membersincluding from some of my hon. Friendsthat my constituents have no locus in this matter, but the law of the land says that they do. The 1999 Act also places a duty on this same authority to consult
	representatives of persons who . . . are likely to use services provided by the authority, and . . . representatives of persons appearing to the authority to have an interest in any area within which the authority carries out functions.
	If you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our capacity as constituency Members, are not representatives, or if our local authorities are not representatives, I honestly do not know to whom or to what the Act is referring. The position is clear cut: there is a statutory duty on the authority to consult either meas my constituents' representativeor my local authority, or to create a mechanism. That is precisely why it is legitimate for me to argue in favour of the amendments that would create this delay, or for the specific utility formula described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), which I find slightly more palatable.
	Following the privatisation of some of the utilities, we have witnessed the creation of the RPI minus X formula and heard arguments in favour of building a stability process into the mechanism. I shall not repeat them, because I appreciate that colleagues are getting itchy feet. However, until I hear that a mechanism has been devised by the MPTA, in consultation with representatives of my constituency, it is perfectly in order for me to argue in favour of these sorts of delays.
	One of the documents associated with the Billthe promoter's statementincludes an interesting graph, showing future traffic growth. Unfortunately, we do not have the facility to display graphics in the Chamber[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) evidently believes that we should not have it, but never mind. The graph is preceded by a couple of paragraphs dealing with Merseytravel's logic for creating the RPI formula. The graph shows traffic flow forecasts both with and without the application of the formula. Precisely the sort of thing that should be discussed in consultation with the local authorities in my area and with me is the logic behind the changing grapheffectively a missing bit. There may be a perfectly sound logic to it. What follows in paragraph 13 on page 3 of the document is, to all intents and purposes, a congestion charge.
	I am not opposed to congestion charging: far from it. I declare a minor beneficial interest, in that I am exempt from the congestion charge in London because my car runs on liquid petroleum gas. If the graph is intended to demonstrate the depressant effect of the clause in the context of congestion charging, it is an argument that should be further pursued. It should also be examined in the context of whether other congestion charging, in the city centre or in Birkenhead, could also apply in parallel. What effect would that have on motorists? We need to ascertain whether RPI in the clause or RPI minus X in the amendment is the legitimate way of proceeding, and I want such a discussion to take place.
	We could examine the history of the debts and find all sorts of reasons why they should not have accrued, but I personally do not blame the current management, because the reasons are much more deep seated. However, in view of the consequences of creating a fixed formula by which the authority should proceed, I am taking the opportunity to plead with the passenger transport authority and the Minister to join up and ensure that the principle set out in clause 1 of the best value legislation to which I referred applies equally to the Bill when it becomes an Act. I stress when it becomes an Act, because it is not my intention to filibuster the Bill and be called to order.
	The three core principles set out in the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South cannot be understood in the absence of the proper explanation that I have just set out about the future traffic growth scenario. That scenario, shown up to 2027 in the graph, shows an increase of about 4 million vehicles on one assessment and 2 million on another, which amounts to a huge revenue-raising exercise in itself.

Bob Spink: rose

Andrew Miller: I am not giving way. How can that justify RPI standing on its own? I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) in an earlier interventionthat it does not have to be RPI and could be something else. However, if it is to be something else, I insist that the Bill, together with best value legislation, requires the MPTA to consult people in my constituency in a proper manner.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I congratulate my colleagues who have spoken so well today on the amendments and I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, which are supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), try to change the time from which indexation would run. The tunnels' tolls were last increased, as hon. Members will know, on 1 December 1999, and it is only right and properand appropriatethat the indexation of tolls should apply from 1999.
	The amendments also ignore the management of the tunnels' future traffic growth, which would be far easier to review on a yearly basis, rather than on a quinquennial basis.

Ben Chapman: Of course I respect the sincerity of my hon. Friend's views, but I wonder why she claims that indexation should go back to 1999, when there is no evidence that the passenger transport authority is short of money. Why should the tunnel users be penalised when there is no demonstrable need for them to be so?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: As I said, the last tunnel toll increase was in 1999. There has been no increase subsequently, which is why it is appropriate for the review to start in 1999.

Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend will not wish to mislead the House inadvertently on that point. She will know, as I mentioned earlier, that there is an order in the offing to change the toll from 1.20 cash for a car to 1.30. That is happening as we speak, so the situation is not exactly as my hon. Friend suggests.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend is correct. If the House sees fit to give the Bill good passage, that increase might not be necessary. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the amendments at hand, and we are not here to debate that particular point.
	Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 run counter to the annual review of tolls that forms part and parcel of a regulatory, inflation-related review of toll levels and, if necessary, increases. They are therefore not acceptable. In the permanently low-inflation society that we have enjoyed of late, a review of tolls every five years might be appropriate, but we may not be in a low-inflation society in five or 10 years' time. Management must seek to manage for all conditions. With a review every five years, the revenues would quickly fall behind costs, the traffic restraint effect of the tolls would be reduced, and users would face a large toll increase every five years, which would be difficult to plan for. An increase every five years is far more difficult to accommodate than an annual increase.
	Amendments Nos. 35 and 24 are contrary to the Bill's proposed use of RPI, which is the right index to use, especially given the arrangements that are in place at the Dartford and Severn crossingsas was pointed out earlier.

Andrew Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill does not take precedence over existing Acts of Parliament, and that it must be read in parallel with other legislation, including the best value legislation?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Yes. I cannot think of any immediate reasons why it should not be treated in that way. However, I am minded that God took only seven days to create the world, whereas we have spent about 1,000 days on the Bill. For most us, it is complex in the extreme.

Frank Field: The Bill is complex and it has taken a long time to consider, but does my hon. Friend agree that the normal give and take in debates such as this would have allowed her to secure her Bill this evening? The problem is that the authority that she represents is not prepared to listen to or concede any of our arguments.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically ungenerous. The promoters of the Bill have tried to do everything in their power to meet and reassure those hon. Members who object to the Bill.
	After Second Reading, the Bill went through to a Committee unopposed. That arrangement may not suit some hon. Members, but it is the only procedure available for consideration of a Bill such as this. There was also an opportunity for petitioners to advance their arguments and concerns, but they were withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently bring the hon. Lady back on track? She should talk about the amendments.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Amendments Nos. 35 and 24 run counter to the annual review of tolls that form part of the principle of regular inflation-related reviews of toll levels and, if necessary, increases. Therefore, I suggest that the amendments are not acceptable.
	Finally, amendment No. 18 is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that he proposes to insert a power to freeze toll prices when the tunnels' revenue needs can be met without a rise. The amendment also provides that the toll would be suspended where the tunnels' revenue needs can be met without toll revenue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say whether that is an accurate understanding of the amendment.

Frank Field: My hon. Friend is right in her reading of that amendment, and of the others in my name.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I read amendment No. 18 with some interest, and I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks. He attempted to argue that tolls should be increased in ways other than those set out in the Bill. However, the second part of the amendment anticipates a situation that has never arisen, and which is never likely to arise. That situation is one where the tolls can be suspended if the tunnels' revenue needs can be met without toll revenue. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which that wonderful option might arise.

Frank Field: Again, I must be careful, as this matter relates to the other amendment in my name. However, it is possible that a stage could be reached when debts have been repaid and reserves accumulated. In those circumstances, the toll would not require a further increase until some time in the future, when additional revenueover and above the amount previously achieved through tollswould be needed.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. However, issues of maintenance and health and safety in the tunnels have an impact on the bottom line of the Merseyside passenger transport authority's annual accounts. In light of that, my right hon. Friend and I will be a long time dead before we reach the circumstances that he describes in the amendment.

Stephen Hesford: If my hon. Friend is right and the situation that amendment No. 18 is designed to meet has not arisen in living memory and is unlikely to arise, what is the objection to the provision? The amendment is not mandatory but permissive. What is the harm in including it, in caseas my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) argued so persuasivelysuch a situation were to arise?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but we have to deal with reality. The authoritythe promoters of the Billtried to envisage all possible scenarios, but that scenario is highly unlikely so it has not been considered.
	I want to deal more fully with the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. It ignores one of the principles of the Bill, which is wrapped up in the RPI-related provisionsthat the tunnels' tolls must be used as a means to manage further traffic levels. The first part of the amendment is unnecessary, given that the powers under section 92C

Ben Chapman: Will my hon. Friend elucidate for the House how increasing the Mersey tunnels' tolls will control the flow of traffic?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Given my hon. Friend's expert knowledge and the expert advice that he has received, it would ill become me to offer him an answer. I think that the answer lies in his hands.

Frank Field: It seems that we are extending the Bill from a measure that would give authority to raise tolls to one that will control congestion. That is not in the Bill.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution but I must press on, as we have much more to do.
	In conclusion, I have given substantial thought to the amendments and I do not agree with them. The Bill's provisions are acceptable and have been adequately debated.

Peter Kilfoyle: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:
	The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 70.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 165.

Question accordingly negatived.

Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we began our debate a couple of hours ago, I consulted the Clerks about whether we would be able to ask you for individual votes on some of the amendments in the first group, and I was told that that would be possible. I very much wish to vote on two amendments in the first groupamendment No. 35, to which I spoke, and amendment No. 18, which I tabled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may well be that the Chair would consider that request favourably, but it cannot consider it now because we have not reached those amendments on the amendment paper. They come beyond the next group of amendments, so they cannot be voted on, under any circumstances, at this moment. We move on to

Frank Field: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that I am clear, is it the case that although we have debated the amendments on which I wish to vote, we will not vote on them now, but we will be able to return to them and vote on them at a later stage?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the discretion of the Chair.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that once we reach this stage in proceedings, if an hon. Member is in the process of speaking when the time expires, when we return to the Bill that Member would still be on his or her feet when the debate resumed, and the time allowed would take into account what may have been said? At this stage of the debate, it would be useful if Members in the Chamber were aware of what was possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer is yes.
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker interrupted the business, pursuant to Order [4 June].
	Bill to be further considered on Tuesday 17 June.

CUSTOMS SERVICES (CORNWALL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Dan Norris.]

Candy Atherton: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern in my constituencythe future of the customs service in Cornwall and the south-west more widely.
	In March, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise published its business plan for the next three years. It included the restructuring of the service, reducing fixed- location staffing in favour of flying squads responding to intelligence and tip-offs. That was confirmed by my hon. Friend the Minister in a parliamentary answer on 26 March 2003. I believe that the Government's plans will be detrimental to my constituency and raise issues affecting the whole county and country.
	Before coming to the current problems, I should like to remind the House of Cornwall's link with smuggling. Our literature and history are littered with the stories of smuggling, from the Poldark novels to the chimney, known as the pipe, that grows out of our customs house in Falmouth, where smuggled baccy was burned. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that there is an excellent restaurant called the The Pipe as a testimony to the importance that the chimney played in the history of the town.
	Falmouth is the world's third-deepest natural harbour. For centuries, it has played host to those seeking to ply their trade by sea. Sometimes, those trades were less than honourablehence, the presence of the Customs in our town. Indeed, smuggling has been a central part of the county's history. Our tourists love nothing more than to visit our historic smuggling coves and areas. The stories add colour to our visitors' visits, but the fictional and rather romantic side of the issue hides a more serious and dangerous side.
	I first visited Falmouth customs house in 1997, after my election to this House. Even then, Inland Revenue officers felt that the service that they provided was under threat. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), now Paymaster General, and urged her to continue to support the service in Cornwall. As a regular visitor to the waterfront, I had frequent updates, both formally and informally, and word reached me after the last election that Falmouth customs house was under threat. Indeed, the whole service was under threat. To be honest, I was at first in disbelief about that. A Cornwall without Revenue presence is like a fish without water, and I put the letter in the green ink file.
	The current customs house is situated on the old customs house quay in the centre of town, overlooking the harbour and the Carrick Roads. It could have come straight out of a set from the Poldark novels and, indeed, it has appeared as such. It dominates the landscape, and it undoubtedly needs renovation and more modern facilities. The service started negotiations locally for a new building. A local company was informally asked to prepare plans for a new customs house, only to find later that the service had changed its mind, that no building was planned, that its plans were not to be used and that it was not going to be paid for its work. I have raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister in the past, and I am pleased to say that it has now been partially resolved and that a payment has been made to the company.
	At the same time, I heard again that the entire service was to be removed from Falmouthand not only Falmouth, but Cornwall. People were telling me that Cornwall, with its long history of smuggling, was to be without any regular Inland Revenue presence. That is good news if one is a smuggler, whether of human beings or illegal goods, a terrorist or somebody engaged in an otherwise illegal activity. It is bad news if one has concerns about those issues.
	I understand that the plan is to have an intelligence-led operation. That sounds very grand, does it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The reality, however, will be that the needs of south-east England will be seen as more important than those of Cornwall. I accept that there are real problems in the south-east, but I do not believe that the answer lies in withdrawing Cornwall's services. In future, the Inland Revenue in Cornwall will operate in the following way. On Monday morning, all the officersthere are currently 17 in Falmouthwill turn up for work, get into a minibus and head off to all parts east. They will spend the working week in that manner, at some considerable cost to the service, and have the following week off. If the service believes that a major ring is operating from Dover or Gatwick, to Dover or to Gatwick the officers will go. That leaves me completely speechless, which does not happen very often. Germany is significantly nearer to Dover than Cornwall is. Cornish officers will spend at least eight hours travelling to Dover, and a similar amount of time returning. Two of the five days of their working week will be spent just travelling. Is that not daft? At the same time, there will be nobody left in Cornwall to provide any intelligence, so the teams will never be able to act on it.
	When I heard those incredible proposals, and after I had picked myself up off the floor, I immediately contacted my hon. Friend the Minister, tabled parliamentary questions and determined to do all that I could to oppose them. The proposals extend to ports across the length of the south of Englandthe same system will operate from Falmouth to Bristol and along to Dover. For the far south-west, there will be no officers at all in Cornwall, Devon and Dorset. Has any Member ever heard of such a smuggler's charter?
	The lunacy of the plan is shown by events that occurred just two weeks ago. The Revenue had a great success in Plymouth when officers found a caravan equipped for smuggling, 400,000 cigarettes and 200 kg of tobacco. Amazingly, there was no publicity about that incredible seizure. Could that be because it might have been slightly embarrassing for the Customs, given its involvement in the changes?
	It would be fair to say that the Public and Commercial Services union was less than impressed with the plans when they were published, and immediately started discussions with management. It is not for me to get involved in those discussions, but I know that it has significant concerns for its members, many of whom are my constituents. I understand that some of the staff quite liked the voluntary arrangements, but not the proposed compulsory ones. Can anyone say that they know what their family commitments will be in years to come? To date, only one person has opted to join the mobile teams. I have great sympathy for the staff. They are being asked to leave families, homes, educational courses, pets and social life to lead a life that is not dissimilar to an MP'sthat is, away from home for most of the time. The crucial difference, though, is that we chose this lifestyle, whereas they sought a local job serving a local communitythey did not join the service to traipse around the country for most of the time. Last week, the union went to the Whitley council, but it was unable to reach an agreement and is now in official dispute.
	What will it all mean? In September, under current plans, the customs house in Falmouth will close. A Portakabin will be located on Falmouth docks and used for those staff who do not agree to join the mobile scheme. The Revenue in Cornwall are being reduced to a Portakabin. That will last for three years, after which the Revenue will apparently operate out of a white van. I thought that those were the guys we were supposed to be chasing. Smugglerswhether of drugs, cigarettes, tobacco, people, animals or even terroristswill know that there is an open door in the west country. There will be no one around to provide intelligence, and therefore no one around to apprehend smugglers. There is already a thriving local trade in smuggled cigarettes. No doubt some people will not welcome my campaign for the Government to think again, because their cheap baccy will be all the easier to obtain, but I happen to disagree. Local shopkeepers will suffer, legitimate publicans and others will be undercut and the Governmentpartly due to their follywill lose their tax income.
	A few years ago, I visited some of the more remote Scottish islands. One island was visited irregularly by Customs, which suited some people. Like Cornwall, it had several remote beaches where one could land smuggled goods. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, the ferry came in and, as it approached, a white van would cruise down to the harbour. At any sign of customs officers or strangers on the ferry, it would gently drive away. If there were no strangers or customs officers, the white van would slip quietly on to the ferry. I saw that for myself, and I predict similar occurrences in Cornwall if the plan goes ahead.

Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on such an important matter to our constituents. Does she agree that there is also a huge question mark over the Government's commitment to tackling the drug supply in our area? Plymouth has unfortunately experienced a recent increase in drug deaths from crack cocaine. Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a critical issue for our constituents?

Candy Atherton: I certainly do. I remember that, on one of my visits, representatives of Falmouth Revenue took me out on a local boat to show me how they identified the vessels that could be smuggling crack cocaine. I regret that that service will be lost if we lose our local teams.
	I described what was happening in Scotland. I believe that in Cornwall, white vans will quietly meet yachts and ships and travel up the A30 with their contraband. I made that clear to my hon. and good Friend the Economic Secretary during a meeting that he agreed to hold with me recently.
	Let us consider deterrence. It has been alleged that only intelligence works today. However, I wonder whether a deterrent is also valuable. I cannot help but believe that the imposing presence of the customs house overlooking Falmouth harbour plays its part in telling the world, We are watching you. If smugglers know that there is an open-door policy in Cornwall, they will walk straight in and never go near Dover or Gatwick.
	I feel strongly about the matter and for the people who are affected. As parliamentarians, we understand the problems of working away from home. However, my constituents want to work in their towns and live with their families. They do not want to be away one week and home the next. How can a lone parent or someone with caring responsibilities work in that way? I suggest that they cannot.
	The economy will be affected. The Treasury is doing great things to help us to overcome the disadvantages of peripherality. It would be a tragic irony if it gave with one hand and took away with the other. We would lose 17 jobs from the economy in the long term. I predict that people will not stay in their employment, but leave what I consider to be a good job that pays pensionable, good wages in a low-wage economy.
	Is the proposal a licence for all smugglers to stick two fingers up at the Revenue? I fear that it is. I do not believe that my constituents would do that, but I cannot vouch for visitors from all points of the compass. Falmouth is a lively, cosmopolitan port. The proposal is bad for my constituents; and it is bad for the good publicans, newsagents and tobacconists who struggle to survive and are daily undercut by people who bring in goods from the continent and deprive them of the money. They pay the Revenue while others do not.
	The proposal is bad for law-abiding citizens and the Treasury, which will not receive the money to which it is entitled. However, it is good for smugglers and I strongly urge the Economic Secretary to think again.

John Healey: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to the way in which she has represented her constituency on this matter. I have answered her parliamentary questions, her letters, her request to see me and to see the Customs and Excise regional director, and now I am pleased to be able to answer her Adjournment debate as well.
	My hon. Friend set out her criticisms in typically combative style. Let me start, however, with the concern we share, which is to see the UK's frontier effectively protected against threats such as smuggling and terrorist activity. I want to explain why the proposed reforms of Customs and Excise are designed to do just that. As a Government, we are committed to making sure that Britain is better protected and that Customs is more effective in tackling smuggling and security threats. We have demonstrated this from the day that we took office.
	In 1997, we rescinded the cut of 300 front-line anti-smuggling staff imposed by the previous Government. In 2000, we invested an extra 209 million of new money to tackle tobacco and cross-channel smuggling, leading to an extra 1,000 Customs staff. Last year, we provided a further 39 million to tackle road fuel fraud and fraud linked to VAT in the European Union. Most recently, as a result of the extra 330 million that the Chancellor announced in this year's Budget to tackle terrorism, Customs' anti-smuggling and border security resources will see a further overall increase over the next three years. There will be redeployments, as we are discussing tonight, but overall resources and staff will increase.
	The threat of serious crime and the potential threat of terrorism in the 21st century demand the most modern methods of law enforcement. That is why much-needed changes are being made to the way in which Customs works, and those changes will ensure that the south-west, including my hon. Friend's constituency, is betternot less wellprotected. Modern smuggling is big business, run by international criminal gangs that are well organised, well financed and highly adaptable. They use ever more sophisticated methods to generate their illegal wealth. Our challenge has been to build a modern customs service to match these criminals. This means not only working in new ways but developing new skills, using new intelligence techniques and investing in the latest technology.
	Our presence in some locations has simply been too predictable for criminals. In my experience, our customs officers are strongly committed to their job and dedicated to their public service role. Nowadays, however, when we have them based at a port just in case, they are simply not able to produce the results that we need. Nor, with routine duty patterns in low-risk ports and airports, are we ensuring an efficient use of taxpayers' money or best protecting society against smugglers and their activities. This is not the fault of individual staff. The way in which we currently deploy customs officers in the south-west does not match the threat that modern crime poses.
	A thin blue line of static customs officers on routine duties at low-threat ports does not deter the well-resourced criminals who are determined to breach our borders. For this reason, staff in the static detection team based in Falmouth are now being redeployed into mobile brigades. I stress that this is a redeployment, not a redundancy programme. Let me say to my hon. Friend that fivenot oneof the 17 Falmouth-based officers have signed up for the mobile team. Let me also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) that in her constituency, we will be able to maintain the cover that we need with the two new brigade teams, reinforced as necessary with other teams from the region to safeguard our frontier at Plymouth. All but eight of the 42 Customs staff at Plymouth have signed up for the new arrangements.
	Whatever happened in the Poldark period, intelligence and experience now show that most drugs and illegal goods on the streets in the south-west come through ports in the south-east and the airports around London. Even small-scale individual bootlegging is often routed through the busy ports in south-east England. Last year, for instance, 2 tonnes of hand-rolling tobacco and three quarters of a million cigarettes were seized, mainly at Dover, from people with Devon and Cornwall postcodes, and 50 kg of heroin seized in Northampton was destined for a south Devon address.
	In contrast, the local frontier team in Falmouth has not detected any illegal cigarettes or crime-related cash in substantial quantities during the past two years. In the past five years there have been only two significant seizures of class A drugs in Cornwall, neither of which resulted from local detection. Evidence shows that customs activities outside the south-west are more beneficial to south-west communities.

Candy Atherton: Will my hon. Friend say something about deterrence? While I am very ready to accept the figures he has given, I cannot help wondering whether they would be very different in a few years if the people who are smuggling were found.

John Healey: I know that this is contrary to common sense, but as I have explained, modern smugglers are increasingly sophisticated. Predictable duty rosters involving static staff in low-volume, low-threat ports constitute no deterrent to the organised smuggler nowadays. If our intelligence leads us to detect a change in the pattern and methods of smugglers, and perhaps the reintroduction of 18th-century smuggling routes that use Cornish coastline or ports, we will respond accordingly.
	Customs is building more flexible teams to operate in the south-west and beyond, wherever intelligence tells us there is a threatwhether from drugs, illegal meat or terrorism. The south-west coast, including my hon. Friend's constituency, provides a good example of the way in which intelligence is now the key to the detection and tackling of smuggling. Without intelligence-led targeting, there would be no hope of identifying the few offending vessels among many thousands along nearly 500 miles of coastline between Dover and Land's End. That is why 99 per cent. of drugs seizures from yachts in the south-west have been intelligence-driven rather than a result of routine checks by static officers at ports such as Falmouth.

Candy Atherton: One of the problems is that we will not have officers in Cornwall, which is surrounded on three sides by water, with intelligence to feed into the system if all the operatives are in the south-east.

John Healey: In a moment I shall say something about where the mobile teams will be based; but their existence means that more officers, not fewer, will be available to cover the threats from Cornwall, and they will not be based solely in the south-east.
	Results from the flexible teams already deployed speak for themselves. In 200203, one mobile team from the south-west, when deployed to a high-risk port or airport, typically seized 2 million cigarettes. Over the same period, three teams permanently based in Plymouth and Falmouth seized only 0.4 million cigarettes between them. In future, flexible teams operating from Poole, Plymouth and Avonmouth will be working in the frontier ports throughout the south-west and inland on a threat and intelligence-driven basis. Customs intelligence and detection officers will work in joint teams in Plymouth for that purpose. This summer, special joint operations will be carried out by Customs with the Devon and Cornwall police and other agencies. One of our fleet of customs cutters will be permanently deployed in the south-west approaches. Far from withdrawing from the areas from which staff are being redeployed, under Customs' new plans more officers than ever will cover the region in mobile teams wherever intelligence tells us that there is a threat.
	For the police and the immigration service as well as Customs, our most effective law enforcement against major smugglers and criminals is now led by intelligence.
	Therefore, alongside the deployment of more mobile detection teams across the UK, Customs is investing heavily to increase its intelligence capabilitynew methods, modern techniques and more staff. It is reinforcing intelligence links with other agencies and setting up new joint intelligence cells with police special branch and immigration staff. Customs already operates such joint intelligence cells in the south-west, based in Plymouth and Exeter.
	I can today confirm that, to reinforce its intelligence cover in Cornwall, Customs will be setting up a dedicated unit of three officers in Falmouth. Those Cornish officers will link with other law enforcement agencies to monitor the threat from smuggling and fraud in Cornwall. They will play an important part in developing the intelligence that will drive the deployment of other Customs teams across Cornwall, both inland and at Cornish ports.
	My hon. Friend raises concerns about the personal circumstances of staff affected by change. Customs managers are very mindful of that. Over 80 per cent. of nearly 350 staff in the south-west division of Customs have signed up for the new mobile brigades, and almost half of the remainder have either been found or lined up for work elsewhere in Customs. In some cases, arrangements have been individually tailored to deal with special family circumstances.
	The Government will do what is needed to reinforce security at our borders and to tackle smuggling.

Candy Atherton: I am absolutely delighted about the three officers. I hope that, over the years, we can increase their number and eventually get back to the current complement, but where will those officers be located? Will we keep the customs house that has long dominated the landscape and skyline of Falmouth harbour?

John Healey: Let me be clear. The role of those officers is an intelligence role; it is not a static detection role. Their function, purpose and role in the modern Customs are different. I am consciousI have seen for myselfhow dramatic the customs house is at Falmouth. At present, Customs managers are looking at the possibility of extending the current lease as the operational base in Falmouth.
	Since 1997, the Government have shown themselves to be ready to invest heavily in Customs and Excise but, as the threats we face change, so must our methods. I hope that I have been able to offer reassurance that Customs' cover for Cornwall will be reinforced, not reduced. I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed the new Cornish intelligence unit that will be based in Falmouth and will play such an important role there.
	These are major changes. I know that change on this scale is often hard for those affected, but our priority is the protection of the south-west and the rest of the UK from serious crime, and ditching outdated and unproductive working methods. We must build a modern customs service. Anything else will fail my hon. Friend's constituents, the people of Devon and Cornwall and all those others who rely on us to protect them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eight o'clock.